FT MEADE 

CenCol1 

DATA ABOUT THE 
ARMY AND NAVY OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND AN OUTLINE OF 
THE PREPAREDNESS 
PROGRAM 


Compiled for Collier’s Washington Bureau 

UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 

MARK SULLIVAN 

H % 

EDITOR OF COLLIER’S WEEKLY 


COLLIER’S WASHINGTON BUREAU BOOKLET 
No. 1—SECOND EDITION , 



March, 1916 













COPYRIGHT, igi6 
BY P. F. COLLIER & SON 




/ 

APR 13 1916 



©Cl. A 4 276 8 7 

*Vvt> | > 


TO OUR CORRESPONDENTS 

Collier’s Washington Bureau has received a large number of letters 
from all sections of the country asking for information about the 
present status of the Army and Navy of the United States; how they 
rank with those of the other powers; and for information about the 
preparedness program of the Administration. This information is 
not embodied in any one or two documents but is scattered through 
a dozen or more reports, and digging it out is a tedious task even if 
it were possible—which it is not—to obtain a sufficient number of 
copies of these reports to supply the demand. This pamphlet has 
been compiled for the convenience of our readers. It is simply an 
attempt to present, in concrete form, information not otherwise 
available. No literary merit of any sort is claimed for it. It merely 
answers the questions most frequently asked by correspondents. 


DEPARTMENT OF WAR , 

Former Secretary of War, Findley Miller Garrison. 

From Secretary Garrison’s Report 

At the present time appropriations are available for the maintenance of an 
army and all of the accessory employees thereof aggregating 5,023 officers and 
102.985 enlisted men. Of these 07.000 men are mobile army troops, 20,000 are 
coast defense troops, and the balance are Hospital Corps, quartermaster men. 
and other employees of that character. Of this total number, about 29.000 are 
on service outside continental United States, leaving therein about 46.000 
mobile army troops and about 13.000 coast defense troops. Deductions must 
be made from these latter figures of sufficient troops to garrison the over-sea 
possessions, which will materially reduce each of the totals above mentioned. 

The Organized Militia in the various States has an enrollment of approxi¬ 
mately 129.000 men and officers. 


Extract from Report of Chief of Staff 

The strength of the entire military establishment authorized by the Presi¬ 
dent. under the statutory limitation of 100.000 enlisted men, on .Tune 30. 1915. 
by branches of service, is shown in the following table: 

Enlisted 

Officers men 

Total Regular Army. 4.834 97.248 

Philippine Scouts. 182 5,733 


Geographical Distribution of the Army on .Tune 
following table: 


30. 


Geographical Distribution 

In the United States. 

In Alaska. 

In the Philippine Islands: 

Regular Army. 

Philippine Scouts. 

In China. 

In Porto Rico. 

In Hawaii. 

In the Isthmian Canal Zone. 

Troops en route and officers at other foreign stations. 


5.016 

102.981 

1915. is 

shown by the 


Enlisted 

Officers 

men 


64.756 

23 

747 

455 

12.451 

182 

5.430 

45 

1.361 

37 

670 

322 

9.199 

192 

6.151 

40 

427 

4.798 

101.195 


( 3 ) 
















4 


Extract from Article by Richard Washburn Child 

We have an army of ninety-odd thousand; only about one-half are in the 
United States. Of this half, a third are required for harbor fortifications. 
Twenty-five or thirty thousand are left. Major General Leonard Wood says 
it would take a month to bring them together from their scattered posts. 

We have an army reserve—less than twenty men. 


From 

Secretary Garrison's Report for 

1911, 



Land 

forces of various countries 



Area 



Total 

Country 

(square 

Popula- 

Peace 

trained 


miles) 

tion 

strength 

war 





strength 

Germany. 

_ 208,830 

64.903,423 

620,000 

4.000.000 

France . 

207,054 

38,961,945 

560.000 

3.000,000 

Russia... 

_ 8,647,657 

160.095.200 

1.200.000 

4,500,000 

Great Britain and colonies. 11.467,294 

396,294.752 

254,500 

800.000 

Italy. 

_ 110.550 

32,475,253 

275,000 

1,200,000 

Austria-Hungary ... 

_ 261.035 

49,418,596 

360,000 

2,000,000 

Japan . 

_ 147.655 

53,875,390 

230,000 

1,200,000 

Turkey. 

.... 1,186,874 

35,764,876 

420.000 

1,200,000 

Spain. 

_ 194,783 

19,503,008 

115.000 

300,000 

Switzerland. 

15.976 

3.741.971 

140.000 

275,000 

Sweden. 

172.876 

5.476,441 

75.000 

400,000 

Belgium. 

11,373 

7.074,910 

42.000 

180,000 


Extracts from an Article by Representative dames Hay, Chairman of the 
Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives 

A consideration of the amount of money we spend each year on our army 
shows conclusively that we cannot be unprepared for war. The Committee on 
Military Affairs appropriated for the fiscal year that will end June 30. 1915, 
$101,000,000 for the maintenance of the army. The fortification expenses car¬ 
ried in the Fortifications Act, handled by the Committee on Appropriations, 
were $5,218,250, and the Sundry Civil Act gave $643,000 for armories and 
arsenals and $805,428 for military posts. All this runs into a large total: 
so large that the economists complain of the burdensome taxation made neces¬ 
sary by the maintenance of any military establishment at. all. To say that 
the use of such money in the hands of officers of the United States army does 
not make us efficient in a military sense is to attack unjustifiably the ability of 
a set of men famous the world over for their contributions to military science. 

******** 


The totals for the ten fiscal years 1905 to 1915 have been as follows: 


Permanent appropriations (including Pacific railroads trans¬ 
portation and enlisted men’s deposit fund). $11,999,271.00 

Fortification acts, armories and arsenals, and military posts 
in sundry civil acts, and deficiencies for military establish¬ 
ment in deficiency acts. 113,071.133.17 

Army appropriation acts. 868,536.993.31 

Military Academy acts. 13,802.873.00 


Total. $1,007,410,270.48 





















5 


Extract from an Article by Representative James Hay , Chairman of the 
Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives 

Memorandum of the state of preparation, in the principal items of fighting ma¬ 
terial of the United States army, for entering upon a war that would require 
THE EQUIPMENT OF AN ARMY OF ABOUT 460,000 MOBILE TROOPS AND 50,000 COAST 
ARTILLERY TROOPS. 



On hand 

Additional 
provided 
for by ap¬ 
propriation 

Total 

provided 

for 

Total 

in 

project 

Required 

to 

complete 

project 

Rifles . 

1,037,000 

36,749 

1,073.749 

600,000 


Pistols and revolvers.... 

145,579 

31,271 

176,850 

172,378 

97,020 

Sabers. 

Ball cartridges, caliber .30, 

68,763 

5,000 

73,763 

41,006 

11,006 

models of 1906 & 1898.. 
Pistol and revolver cart- 

196,000,000 

45,000,000 

241,000,000 

196,000,000 


ridges. 

Personal equipments 

31,196.227 

11,500,000 

42.696,227 

31,942,600 


(sets) . 

476,161 

27.839 

504.000 

504,000 


Horse equipments (sets) . 

55.122 

3,200 

58,822 

94,349 

39,227 

Machine guns. 

Field batteries complete. 

1,236 

66 

1,302 

1,633 

331 

4 guns each. 

169 

46 

215 

325 

110 

Ammunition trains. 


* 3 

3 

63 

60 

Harness, wheel (sets)... 
Harness, lead (sets) .... 
Ammunition for field 

2,808 

5,412 

527 

1,071 

3,335 

6,483 

7,500 

16,000 

4.165 

9,517 

artillery rounds . 

177,800 

402,200 

580.000 

1,137,000 

557,000 


Extract from speech made in the House of Representatives by Representative 

Mondell of Wyoming 

The figures of expenditures of the leading nations of Europe for military 
purposes for the 12 years prior to the outbreak of the European War compared 
with ours. They are as follows: 


ARMY EXPENDITURES 



Germany 

France 

Great Britain 

United States 

1901. 

. .. $134,377,394 

$133,769,906 

$442,929,623 

$144,615,697 

1902. 

. . . 135,296,716 

138,088,097 

450,331,847 

112,272,216 

1903. 


132,746,026 

334,876,741 

118,619,520 

1904. 

. . . 137,642,159 

130,531,594 

178,501,083 

115,035.411 

1905...:... 


132,173.050 

140,432,732 

122,175,074 

1900. 

. . . 150.561.180 

138,707,340 

138,407.474 

117,946,692 

1907__ . . 

. . . 151,899,477 

150,537,325 

138,516,906 

122,576,465 

1908. 

. .. 159,586,616 

150.515.900 

131.90S,380 

137,746,524 

1909. 

. . . 145,394,461 

150,515,865 

130,536,193 

161,067,462 

1910. 

.. . 149,497,486 

168,325,047 

132,404,9S9 

155,911,706 

1911. 

. . . 150,872,983 

181,065,215 

133,S90,526 

160,135,976 

1912. 

... 162,S35,530 

177,656,237 

134,390,402 

148,795.422 

Total . 

. . . . 1,756,443,041 

1,784,631,608 

2,487,126,896 

1,616,898,165 


APPROPRIATIONS BY CONGRESS 



1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

For support 

of the 




Army . 

. $90,958,712.98 

$94,266,145.51 

$101,019,212.50 

$101,959,195.87 

Forts and 

Forti- 




fications . 

. 4.036,235.00 

5,218.250.00 

5,627,700.00 

6,060,216.90 

Military Academy . . 1,064,668.26 

1,099,734.87 

997,899.54 

1,069,813.37 


GARRISONED POSTS 

Adams, Ft., R. I. R. R. and tel. stn. Newport, R. I., dist. 3 m. 

Andrews, Ft., Mass. R. R. stn. Boston, Mass., dist. 0 m. 

Apache, Ft., Ariz. Stage daily from Holbrook on S. F. P. R, R., dist. 90 m. 
Armistead, Ft., Md. (subpost of Ft. Howard). R. R. stn. Baltimore, Md., 
dist. 8 m. 

Armstrong. Ft.. H. T. (subpost of Ft. Ruger). P. O. and tel, stn. Hono¬ 
lulu. H. T. 






























6 


Army and Navy General Hospital, Ark. It. It. stn. Hot Springs, Ark. 
Augusta Arsenal, Ga. R. R. stn. Augusta, Ga., dist. 3 m. 

Baker, Ft., Cal. I\ O. and R. R. stn. Sausalito, Cal., dist. 4. m 

Banks, Ft., Mass. R. R. stn. Winthrop, Mass., dist. 2 m.; stn. Boston, Mass. 

Barrancas. Ft., Fla. It. R. stn. Pensacola, Fla., dist. S m. 

Barrv, Ft., Cal. (Western Dept.) R. R. stn. Sausalito, Cal., dist. 7 m. 
Bayard, Ft., General Hospital, N. Mex. R. R. stn. Bayard, N. Mex., dist. 2 m. 
Benicia Arsenal, Cal. Boat Landing, Benicia, Cal., R. R. stn. Army Point. 
Cal. 

Benjamin Harrison, Ft., Ind. P. O. Indianapolis, Ind.; interurban trolley 
from Indianapolis, dist. 10 m. 

Bliss, Ft., Tex. (Southern Dept.) Electric line to El Paso, Tex., for 
passengers only, 5 m. 

Boise Barracks. Idaho. R. R. stn. Boise, Idaho, dist. 2 m. 

Brady, Ft., Mich. R. R. stn. Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., dist. 1 m. 

Brownsville, Tex. 

Calexico, Cal. 

CflDip Ft Bliss Tex 

Canby, Ft, Wash, (subpost of Ft. Stevens, Oreg.). R. R. stn. Ft. Stevens, 
Oreg.. dist. 10 m. 

Carroll, Ft., Md. (subpost of Ft. Howard). R. R. stn. Baltimore, Md., 
dist. S m. 

Casev. Ft., Wash. R. R. stn. Seattle, Wash., dist. 53 m. 

Caswell. Ft., N. C. R. R. stn. Southport, N. C. 

Cayey, Porto Rico. See Henry Barracks. 

Clark, Ft., Tex. R. R. stn. Spofford Junction, Tex., dist. 10 m. 

Columbia, Ft., Wash. R. R. stn. Ft. Stevens, Oreg., dist. 4 m. 

Columbus Barracks, Columbus, Ohio. R. R. stn. Columbus, Ohio, dist. 1 m. 
Columbus, N. Mex 

Constitution, Ft., N. H. R. R. stn. Portsmouth, N. H., dist. 3 m. 

Corozal, C. Z 

Cristobal, C. Z. Hdqrs. the Coast Defense of Panama. 

Crockett, Ft., Tex. R. R. stn. Galveston, Tex. 

Crook. Ft., Nebr. 

Dade, Ft., Fla. R. R. stn. Tampa, Fla., dist. 35 m. 

D. A. Russell, Ft., Wyo. 

Davis. Ft., Alaska. P. O. Nome, Alaska. 

Del Rio, Tex. 

De Russey, Ft., H. T. (subpost of Ft. Ruger) (Hawaiian Dept.). P. O. and 
tel. stn. Honolulu, II. T., dist. 4 m. 

Des Moines, Ft., Iowa. R. R. stn. Des Moines. Iowa, dist. 5 m. 

De Soto, Ft.. Fla. (subpost of Ft. Dade). R. R. stn. Tampa, Fla., dist 34 m. 
Douglas, Ariz. 

Douglas, Ft., Utah. R. R. stn. Salt Lake City, Utah, dist. 4 m. 

Du Pont, Ft., Del. R. R. stn. Delaware City, Del., dist. 2 m. 

Eagle Pass, Tex. 

El Paso, Tex. 

Empire Canal Zone. 33 miles from Colon. 

Ethan Allen, Ft., Vt. 

Flagler, Ft., Wash. R. R. stn. Seattle, Wash., dist. 53 m. 

Foster, Ft., Me. (subpost of Ft. Constitution, N. H.). R. R. stn. Portsmouth, 
N. II., dist. 6 m. 

Frankford Arsenal, Pa. R. R. stn. Bridesburg, Pa., dist y 2 m. 

Gaillard, Camp, C. Z. P. O. and tel. stn. Culebra, 35 miles from Colon. 
Gaines, Ft., Ala. (subpost of Ft. Morgan). R. R. stn. Mobile, Ala., dist. 30 m. 
Gatun, C. Z. 9 miles from Colon. 

George Wright, Ft. Wash. R. R. stn. Spokane, Wash., dist. 4 m. 

Getty, Ft., R. I. (subpost of Ft. Greble). R. R. stn. Newport, R. I., dist. 5 m. 
Gibbon, Ft., Alaska. 

Grant, Ft., C. Z. R. R. stn. Balboa, 3 m. 

Greble, Ft., R. I. R. R. stn. Newport, R. I., dist. 5 m. 

Hamilton, Ft., N. Y. City railway from Brooklyn, dist. 7 m. 

Hancock, Ft., N. ,T. R. R. stn. Highlands, N. J., dist. 6 m. 

Harlingen. Tex. 


7 


Heath, Ft., Mass, (subpost of Ft. Banks). It. It. stn. Highlands, Mass, dist. 

% m. 

Henry Barracks, Porto Rico. 

H. G. Wright, Ft., N. Y. R. R. stn. New London, Conn., dist. 8 m. 

Honolulu, Hawaii (Hawaiian Dept.). 

Howard, Ft., Md. R. It. stn. Baltimore, Md., dist. 17 m. 

Huachuca, Ft., Ariz. (Southern Dept.). R. R. stn. same; E. P. & SW. R. R. 
Hunt, Ft., Va. Electric It. R. stn. Hunter, Va., dist. 1 m.; freight stn. Wash¬ 
ington, D. C. 

Jackson Barracks, La. It. R. stn. New Orleans, La., dist. 6 m. 

Jay, Ft., N. Y. P. O. New York. 

Jefferson Barracks, Mo. 

Kamehameha, Ft., H. T. (Hawaiian Dept.). P. O. and tel. stn. Honolulu, 
H. T. 

Key West Barracks, Fla. 

Kingsville, Tex. 

Laredo, Tex. 

Lawton, Ft., Wash. R. R. stn. Interbay, Wash., dist. 2 m. 

Leavenworth,. Ft.. Kans. 

Leavenworth, Ft.. Army Service Schools, Kans. R. R. stn. Ft. Leavenworth, 
Kans. 

Levett, Ft., Me. (subpost of Ft. Williams). It. R. stn. Portland, Me., dist. 
4 m. 

Lincoln, Ft., N. Dak. R. R. stn. Bismarck, N. Dak., dist. 4 m. 

Liscum, Ft., Alaska. Steamer from Port Valdez, dist. 3 m. 

Logan, Ft, Colo. 

Logan H. Roots, Ft., Ark. R. R. stn. Little Rock, Ark., dist. 4 in. 

Lyford, Tex. 

Lyon, Ft., Me. (subpost of Ft. McKinley). R. It. stn. Portland, Me., dist. 4 m. 
McDowell, Ft., Cal. R. It. stn. San Francisco, Cal., dist. 7 m. 

McIntosh, Ft., Tex. R. It. stn. Laredo, Tex., dist. 1 m. 

Mackenzie, Ft. Wyo. It It. stn. Sheridan, Wyo., dist. 3 m. 

McKinley, Ft., Me. R. R. stn. Portland, Me., dist. 5 m. 

McPherson, Ft., Ga. 

McRee, Ft., Fla. (subpost of Ft. Barrancas). It. R. stn. Pensacola, Fla., dist. 
10 m. 

Madison Barracks, N. Y. It. It. stn. Sacket Harbor, N. Y. 

Mansfield, Ft., R. I. (subpost of Ft. H. G. Wright). R. R. stn. Westerly, R. I., 
dist. 7 m.* 

Mason, Ft., Cal. R. R. stn. San Francisco, Cal., dist. 3 m. 

Meade, Ft., S. Dak. It. R. stn. Sturgis, S. Dak., dist 2 m. 

Mercedes, Tex. 

Michie, Ft., N. Y. (subpost of Ft. Terry, N. Y.). R. R. stn. New London, 
Conn., dist. 11 m. 

Miley, Ft., Cal. (subpost of Ft. Winfield Scott). R. R. stn. San Francisco, 
Cal., dist. 6 m. 

Mission, Tex. 

Missoula, Ft., Mont. 

Monroe, Ft., Va. 

Morgan, Ft, Ala. R. It. stn. Mobile, Ala., dist. 30 m. 

Mott, Ft., N. J. R. R. stn. Salem, N. J., dist. 6 m. 

Moultrie, Ft., S. C. R. R. stn. Charleston, S. C., dist. 6 m. 

Myer, Ft., Va. R. R. stn. Washington, D. C., dist. 4 m. 

Niagara, Ft., N. Y. R. R. stn. Lewiston, N. Y., dist. 7 m. 

Nogales, Ariz. 

Oglethorpe, Ft., Ga. R. R. stn. Chattanooga, Tenn., dist. 11 m. 

Omaha, Ft., Nebr. R. R. stn. Omaha, Nebr., dist. 5 m. 

Ontario, Ft., N. Y. R. R. stn. Oswego, N. Y. 

Otis, Camp E. S., C. Z. 

Pharr, Tex. 

Philip Kearny, Ft., R. I. (subpost of Ft. Greble) (Eastern Dept). R. R. 
stn. Newport, R. I., dist. 7 m. 

Philippine Islands. 


Pickens, Ft., Fla. (subpost of Ft. Barrancas). It. It. stn. Pensacola, Fla., 
dist. 9 m. 

Plattsburg Barracks, N. Y. It. It. stn. Plattsburg, N. Y. 

Porter, Ft., N. Y. K. R. stn. Buffalo, N. Y., dist. 3 m. 

Preble, Ft., Me. (subpost of Ft. Williams). R. R. stn. Portland, Me., (list. 
3 m. 

Presidio of Monterey, Cal. R. It. stn. Monterey, Cal., dist. 2 m. 

Presidio of San Francisco, Cal. It. R. stn. San Francisco, Cal., dist. 5 m. 
Presidio of San Francisco, Letterman General Hospital, Cal. 

Randolph, Ft., C. Z. R. R. stn. Cristobal. 

Revere, Ft., Mass, (subpost of Ft. Andrews, Mass.). R. It. stn. Stony Beach, 
Mass., dist. % in. 

Riley, Ft., Kans. 

Robinson, Ft., Nebr. 

Rock Island Arsenal, Ill. It. It. stn. Rock Island, Ill., dist. 1 in. 

Rodman, Ft., Mass. It. R. stn. New Bedford, Mass., dist. 4 m. 

Rosecrans, Ft., Cal. R. R. stn. San Diego, Cal., dist. 6 m. 

Ruger, Ft., II. T. P. O. and tel. stn. Honolulu, H. T., dist. 6 m. 

St. Michael, Ft., Alaska. 

St. Philip, Ft., La. (subpost of Jackson Bks., La.). R. R. stn. Buras, La., 
dist. G m. 

Sam Houston, Ft., Tex. R. It. stn. San Antonio, Tex., dist. 3 m. 

San Benito, Tex. 

San Diego, Cal. 

Sandy Hook Proving Ground, N. .T. It. It. stn. Highlands, N. J.. dist. G m. 
San Jacinto, Ft., Tex. (subpost of Ft. Crockett). R. R. stn. Galveston. Tex. 
San Juan, Porto Rico. 

San Juan, Texas. 

Schofield Barracks, Hawaii (Hawaiian Dept.). R. R. from Honolulu to post, 
dist. 27 m. 

Schuyler, Ft., N. Y. (subpost of Ft. Totten). R. It. stn. Westchester Stn., 
New York City, dist. 3 m. 

Screven. Ft., Ga. 

Shatter, Ft., Hawaii (Hawaiian Dept.). P. O. and tel, stn. Honolulu, Hawaii, 
dist. 3 m. 

Sheridan, Ft., Ill. 

Sherman, Ft., C. Z. It. It. stn. Cristobal. 

Sill. Ft., Okla. 

Slocum, Ft., N. Y. It. R. stn. New Rochelle, N. Y.. dist. 2 m. 

Smallwood, Ft., Md. (subpost of Ft. Howard). It. R. stn. Baltimore, Md., 
dist. 11 m. 

Snelling, Ft., Minn. Electric street railway to St. Paul, Minn., dist. 7 m. 
Springfield Armory, Mass. R. It. stn. Springfield, Mass. 

Standish, Ft., Mass, (subpost of Ft. Strong). R. It. stn. Boston, Mass., dist. 
7 m. 

Stark, Ft., N. H. (subpost of Ft. Constitution). R. R. stn. Portsmouth, 
N. H., dist. 3 m. 

Stevens, Ft., Greg. 

Strong, Ft., Mass. R. R. stn. Boston, Mass., dist. 5 m. 

Sumter, Ft., S. C. (subpost of Ft. Moultrie). R. R. stn. Charleston, S. C., 
dist. G m. 

Terry, Ft., N. Y. R. R. stn. New London, Conn., dist. 13 m. 

Thomas, Ft., Ivy. 

Totten, Ft., N. Y. R. R. stn. Whitestone, N. Y., dist. 2 m. 

Travis, Ft., Tex. (subpost of Ft. Crockett). R. R. stn. Galveston, Tex. 

U. S. Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Leavenworth, Kans. It. It. stn. Ft. Leaven¬ 
worth, Kans. 

U. S. Disciplinary Barracks, Alcatraz, Cal. It. R. stn. San Francisco, Cal., 
dist. 4 m. 

U. S. Disciplinary Barracks, Ft. Jay, N. Y. 

Vancouver Barracks, Wash. R. R. stn. Vancouver, Wash. 

Wadsworth, Ft., N. Y. 

Walter Reed General Hospital, D. C. R. It. stn. Takoma Park, D. C. 


9 


Ward, Ft., Wash. R.Jt. stn. Seattle. Wash., (list. 11 m. 

Warren, Ft., Mass. R. R. stn. Boston, Mass. 

Washington Barracks, I). C. R. R. stn. Washington, D. C. 

Washington, Ft.. Md. Steamboat from Washington, D. C., (list. 13 m. 

Watertown Arsenal, Mass. R. R. stn. Faneuil, Mass., (list. 1 in. 

Watervliet, Arsenal, N. Y. R. R. stn. Troy, N. Y., (list. 1 in. 

Wayne, Ft., Mich. City railway from Detroit, (list. 4 m. 

West Point, N. Y. (U. S. Mil. Acad.). 

Wetherill, Ft., R. I. (subpost of Ft. Adams). R. R. stn. Newport, R. I., (list. 
2 in. 

Whipple Barracks, Ariz. R. R. stn. Prescott, Ariz., (list. 1 m. 

Whitman, Ft., Wash, (subpost of Ft. Worden). R. R. stn. Mount Vernon, 
wash., (list. 12 m. 

Win. H. Seward, Ft., Alaska. 

Williams, Ft., Me. R. It. stn.' Portland, Me., (list. 4 m. 

Winfield Scott, Ft., Cal. R. R. stn. San Francisco, Cal., (list. 7 in. 

Wood, Ft., N. \\ R. R. stn. New York, N. Y\, (list. 3 m. 

Worden, Ft.. Wash. R. R. stn. Seattle, Wash., (list. 51 m. 

Yellowstone, Ft., Wyo. R. R. stn. Gardiner, Mont., on N. I*. R. R.. (list. 5 m. 

Yuma, Ariz. 

A recent writer on the military affairs of the United States (Edward Mott 
Woolley) claims that there has been a tremendous waste of money intended 
for the National defense in building and maintenance of army posts. He points 
out that the War College has shown in detail where five and a half million 
dollars a year can be saved by concentrating the posts. The War College has 
pointed out that most of the Army posts are unnecessary and obsolete. They 
are not located with any view to invasion or strategy, but are maintained so 
that money may go into Congressional and Senatorial districts. He cites the 
fact that Forts Apache, Clark, Huachua, Mackenzie, Meade, Missoula, Robin¬ 
son. Sill, I). A. Russell, Douglas, Leavenworth, Riley, and Snelling were built 
for protection against the Indians. 

Fort I). A. Russell has cost about six million dollars. The post was estab¬ 
lished in 1X67 to protect the builders of the Union Pacific against savages. 

Fort Des Moines, which has cost something like a million and a half dollars, 
was built without regard for the fact that Fort Omaha, Fort Crook, Fort 
Leavenworth, and Fort Des Moines are within a hundred miles of a common 
center. Fort Des Moines was established without the recommendation of the 
War Department but by act of Congress. 

Fort William Henry Harrison, at Helena, Mont., has cost about a half mil¬ 
lion dollars. It has been recommended for abandonment but Congress has 
ignored the recommendation. 

Fort Ethan Allen, Vermont, has cost a million dollars, and war studies indi¬ 
cate the advisability of withdrawing its garrison to some effective concentra¬ 
tion point. This has not been done. 

Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, cost one million and a half and was 
built without the recommendation of the War Department. 

Fort Meade, South Dakota, has cost a million and a half; Fort George 
Wright in Washington, three-quarters of a million; Fort Yellowstone, Wyo¬ 
ming. nearly a million; Fort Lincoln, North Dakota, seven hundred thousand 
dollars; Whipple Barracks, Arizona, over half a million. All of these posts 
have been recommended for abandonment, but Congress has taken no steps in 
this direction. 

It has been estimated that within the past ten years the cost of construction 
of useless Army posts has been $4,500,000 and the waste in maintenance 
$5,500,000. 

Another writer (Burton .T. Hendrick) says: 

“Wasteful as these methods are, the money loss is not the most serious 
aspect. The scattering of the army enormously reduces its efficiency in that 
it prevents quick mobilization and so greatly endangers national safety. 
Military dangers threaten the nation not in the interior, but on the coasts, and 
to get together these scattered troops in time to meet an invasion might be all 
but impossible.” 


10 


Extract from Secretary Garrison's Report. 

It is not now proposed to attempt a rearrangement of army posts. However 
undesirable from a military standpoint the location of some existing posts 
may* be, they do exist and can be utilized, and in fact will all be necessary if 
the increased force is provided. The essential thing at this time is to obtain 
the requisite men and materiel, and it is relatively unessential where we house 
them. It seems the part of wisdom, therefore, not now to ask for money to 
acquire, erect, and equip new places when the existing ones can be used, and 
furthermore will be available in great degree, for the training of the supple¬ 
ment of the standing army, which is a part of the plan. 


Number of garrisoned and ungarrisoned forts on the coasts of the United States 


Atlantic. 55 

Gulf. 15 

Pacific. 16 


Total..86 


War Department bureau reports disclose the following facts about the army 
of the United States and its coast defenses: 

The system of coast defenses is “the most formidable in the world,” but is 
short 530 officers and 10,828 men of the regular establishment and 271 officers 
and 9,891 men of the national guard to man all forts and mine defenses. Con¬ 
gress has appropriated $175,000,000 to establish the present system, but at 
present batteries which cost $41,000,000 are without trained personnel to man 
them, 

TO KEEP ENEMY’S SHIPS FAR OFF 

Batteries of 16-inch 50-caliber guns are recommended as the primary arm¬ 
ament of all major forts in order that enemy ships may be kept at great 
distance. Mobile howitzer batteries of 16-inch, 17-inch or even larger guns are 
urged to supplement the permanent forts, the howitzers to be fired from rail¬ 
road cars or motor trucks. 


COAST ARTILLERY’S SCORES 

The coast artillery established scores of 59 per cent hits with 10-inch guns 
and 52 per cent hits with 12-inch guns at 5,000-yard ranges, as against 25 per 
cent and 46 per cent, respectively, in 1913; at 10,000 yards the scores were 
36 per cent with the tens and 19 per cent with the twelves, as against 13 and 
14 per cent in 1913. 


ENEMY COULD LAND 

[Extract from the evidence of Rear Admiral Frank F. Fletcher, Dec. 9, 1914 ] 

Representative Witherspoon : How many unharbored places are there on 
the coast where they (the enemy) could land? 

Admiral Fletcher: In smooth water and fine weather, they could lajid al¬ 
most any place, as we did from the open sea at Santiago. (P. 536, official 
printed hearings of House Committee on Naval Affairs.) 

the range of our coast guns 

Correspondence between the Secretary of War and Congressman A. P. 
Gardner relative to the comparative range of foreign naval guns and the guns 
of our sea coast defenses: 

Washington, D. C., December 14, 1914. 
The honorable the Secretary' of War. 

My Dear Mr. Secretary : Would you be kind enough to answer the follow¬ 
ing questions: 

1. How many 14-inch guns are there in the coast defenses of the United 
States, and where are they situated? 










11 


2. Are there any guns of a larger number of inches in caliber, except the 
16-inch gun destined for the Panama Canal? 

3. Referring to page 7 of the current report of the Chief of Coast Artillery, 
how large is the caliber of the guns which “foreign warships of the latest de¬ 
sign are carrying”? 

4. How much do these foreign guns out-range our 14-inch guns? 

5. How much do they out-range our 12-inch guns? 

Very respectfully, 


December 15, 1914. 

Hon. A. P. Gardner, 

Hodse of Representatives. 

My Dear Mr. Gardner: I am in receipt of your letter of even date and an¬ 
swer the inquiries therein as follows: 

1. None. 

2. No. 

3. 15-incli, 45 calibers. 

4. The guns just mentioned carry at their maximum elevation 21,000 yards. 
Our 14-inch guns if mounted so as to shoot at their maximum elevation would 
carry as far. On the present carriage they would carry 18,000 yards. 

5. The foreign guns, just mentioned, as above stated, carry at their maxi¬ 
mum elevation 21,000 yards. Our 12-inch guns on their standard carriage 
carry 13,000 yards. They could be mounted so as to carry a similar distance 
to the foreign guns just mentioned. 

Lindley M. Garrison, 

Secretary of War . 


aeroplanes for protection 

Alberto Santos-Dumont, the noted Brazilian aeronaut, at the joint session 
of the transportation and engineering sections of the Pan-American Scientific 
Congress, said in part: 

“In case of war with any European power neither the United States nor the 
great South American countries could, under present conditions, adequately 
protect their extensive coasts. It would be impossible to patrol the shore of 
Brazil and Argentina with a seagoing fleet. 

“Only a fleet of great areoplanes, flying 200 kilometers an hour, could patrol 
these long coasts. Scouting aeroplanes could detect the approach of hostile 
fleets and warn their own battleships. In case of war, these areoplane fleets 
would enable the United States and the various South American countries to 
operate as allies in protecting their coast lines.” 


Extract from Article by Richard Washburn Child 
“We have a baker’s dozen of aeroplanes, some of which no wise aviator 
wishes to take aloft. Germany has a thousand and a half of them. We need 
over two hundred.” 


MILITIA STRENGTH OCTOBER 1 

On October 1 the full strength of the organized militia was 8,705 officers and 
120,693 men, just 21,571 below the required enlisted strength of the organiza¬ 
tions. Inspecting officers estimate it would require from two to twelve months 
to put the militia in the field in the Federal service. 

There were 32,313 students enrolled in 96 schools having military courses, 
and graduates from these schools since 1905 numbered 39,430. 


From Secretary Garrison's Report 

“In time of peace this force is available to the President of the United 
States, under the Constitution, to aid in enforcing the laws of the Union, to aid 








12 


iii suppressing insurrections, and in repelling invasions. There is no constitu¬ 
tional provision which makes this force otherwise available to the Nation in 
time of war , and therefore no law can be passed by Congress making it so 
available. In order to obtain whatever is possible to be obtained in this re¬ 
spect. the act of Congress concerning the raising of volunteers provides that 
such organized regiments of the National Guard as volunteer may he taken 
over into the service of the United States intact and not merely as individuals.” 

From Article by Richard Washburn Child 

“We have State militia. It cannot be called out by Federal authority. On 
paper, it is a force of about 125,000 men. Military experts place its practical 
strength at about one half that number. In 1913 more than half of ouV militia 
were unable to qualify even as third-class marksmen. About a third take no 
rifle practice. Twenty-five per cent of our militia are lacking the proper 
facilities for drill or target practice. 

“Even if the entire 00,000 available men of the militia were to volunteer for 
national service, it would require two months to put them in the field.” 

MAJ. GEN. LEONARD WOOD’S WARNING 

Statement of facts by Maj. Gen. Leonard Wood, United States Army, when 
Chief of Staff. Submitted December 9. 1913: 

“The fire of modern field artillery is so deadly that troops cannot advance 
over terrain swept by these guns without prohibitive losses. It is therefore 
necessary to neutralize the fire of hostile guns before our troops can advance, 
and the only way to neutralize the fire of this hostile field artillery is by field 
artillery guns, for troops armed with the small arms are as effectual against 
this fire until they arrive at about 2,000 yards from it as though they were 
armed with knives. This field artillery materiel and ammunition cannot be 
quickly obtained. In fact, the Chief of Ordnance estimates that almost one 
year would be required to supply the field artillery guns needed with one field 
army of a little less than 70,000 men. No war within the past 45 years has 
lasted for one year, so that after war is declared it would probably be over 
before we could manufacture an appreciable number of guns; and the same 
aprlies to ammunition. 

“The Ordnance Department states that by running night and day with three 
shifts Frankford Arsenal could turn out about 1,000 rounds of ammunition per 
day, and that if private manufacturers were given orders to run under war 
conditions they could begin deliveries of ammunition in from three to four 
months, ai i< l after getting under way could turn out about 100,000 or 200,000 
rounds per month, for two or three months, and after a total time of six 
months the production would perhaps equal 250,000 rounds per month. The 
best estimates indicate that at the end of the first six months not to exceed 
350,000 rounds could be procured from all sources, including the Government 
plant. After this six months there would be no particular difficulty in securing 
ammunition as rapidly as might be needed.” 


13 


From “Statement of a Proper Military Policy for the United States,” prepared 


by the War College 

PREPAREDNESS OF THE GREAT POWERS FOR OVER-SEA EXPEDITIONS 


r 


Nation 


Aus.-Hun. 
France . . 
' ■ ma ny 
G. Britain 
Italy . . . 
Japan . . 
Russia . . 


Strength 
of army 


Tonnage available of’,ships 
with capacity over — 


4,320 000 
5,000,000 
5,000,000 
1 695,000 
2,600,000 
2,212,000 
5,000,000 


3.000 

tons 


3,569,962 

13,000,000 


2,000 

tons 


1,000 

tons 


762,756 

1,705,931 

4,018,185 


1,065,321 


First expe¬ 
dition using 50 
per cent of 
ton nage given 


Men 


2 1,013,985 


72,000 

160,931 

387,000 

170,000 

91,000 

95,745 


428,019 1. 37,630 


Ani¬ 

mals 


14,000 

32,186 

81,270 

90,000 

13,650 

24,416 

7.940 


Second expe¬ 
dition using 75 
per cent of 
tonnage given 


Men 


108,000 

243,295 

440,000 


136,000 

142,622 

66,444 


Ani¬ 

mals 


21,600 

48,279 

94,600 


20,475 

36,623 

11,918 


Time needed 
to — 


Load 

and 

cross 

ocean 

with 

first 

expe¬ 

di¬ 

tion 


20.7 

15.8 
15.8 
14.0 
18.3 

22.5 

20.5 


Re¬ 

turn. 

load, 

and 

re¬ 

cross 

with 

sec¬ 

ond 

expe¬ 

di¬ 

tion 


40 4 
30 0 
30-8 
270 
35-0 
41.-0 
-40.0 


1 240,500 territorials. 

2 Japanese field regulations indicate the intention to use steamers of 1,000 tons; for this 
reason and because of the large amount of steamers between 10 and 12 knots speed, all 
Japanese steamers over 10 knots speed and a thousand tons gross have been considered. 

3 Fifty per cent has been assumed as the figure representing the amount of shipping in 
or within call of home ports at outbreak of war. 

Note. —The allowance prescribed in our Field Service Regulations of 3 tons per man and 
8 tons per animal for ships over 5,000 tons and 4 tons per man and 10 tons per animal 
for vessels' under 5,000 tons has been used in estimating the capacity of ships, except 
where the regulations of any country prescribe a different allowance. These allowances 
include rations, water, forage, etc., for the voyage and a margin for three months’ reserve 
supplies. The tonnage allowance covers men, animals, and all accessories and is suf¬ 
ficient to provide for vehicles (including guns). 

Fighting power is the result of organization, training, and equipment backed by the 
resources of the country. Available shipping is a matter of commercial statistics. 


f NEWSPAPER SUMMARY 

AS WAR COLLEGE SEES CONDITIONS 

Germany might land 827,000 troops in 30 days. - - 

Japan might land 239,000 troops in 41 days. 

Recommends expenditure of $500,000,000 first year to raise: 

(а) Standing army of 253,500 men. 

(б) Reserve of regulars totaling 379,000. - , 1 — 

(c) Continental army of 500,000 civilian reserves. 

( d ) Harbor defenses and material. 

Declares organized militia not worth place in first line of defense. 
Recommends mobile army in middle west for any emergency. 


From “Statement of a Proper Military Policy for the United States ,” prepared 

by the War College 

TOTAL STRENGTH OF THE REGULAR TROOPS REQUIRED FOR ALL SERVICES 

Combining all previous estimates of Coast Artillery and mobile troops re¬ 
quired for service in over-sea garrisons and at home, the following tabular 
statement of the required strength of the Regular Army in units appropriate 
to each arm, results, viz: 

















































14 


Localities 


Philippines 3 . 

Oahu. 

Canal Zone. 

Alaska. 

Porto Rico. 

Puget Sound Area. 

California. 

North Atlantic States... 

Middle West. 

Mexican border. 

United States. 


Infantry 

regi¬ 

ments 

Cavalry 

regi¬ 

ments 

Field, 

Artillery 

regi¬ 

ments 

9 

3 

O 

t> 

9 

1 

2 

9 

1 

i 

1 

. . 

. . 

1 

, , 

.. 

9 

O 

O 

3J4 

9 

9 

4 

4 

354 

3 14 

9 

O 

O 

0 

1 


Coast 

Artillery 

com¬ 

panies 

Engineer 

bat¬ 

talions 

Signal 

Corps 

bat- 

talions^ 

26 

V/3 

1 

14 

2 

1 

21 

0 

1 


'2/3 

v 2 

. . 

2/ 

1/2 

. . 

2/ 

1/ 

. . 

2/ 

1/2 


34 

1 


22N 


Total required. 65 25 21 2S!) 15/ *10 


1 This estimate can only be verified by an inspection of all the harbors in question, for 
which inspection there has not been sufficient time since this estimate was received. 

2 Includes aero squadrons. 

3 Nine regiments Infantry, 2 regiments Field Artillery. 2 battalions Engineers. Filipinos 
to be added, 21,000 officers and men. 


These figures may be summarized as follows: 


Oversea: 

Mobile (combatant). 74,500 

Coast Artillery Corps. 7,500 

-- 82,000 

In United States: 

Mobile (combatant). 121,000 

Coast Artillery Corps. 27,000 

-- 148,000 

Total: 

Mobile (combatant). 195,500 

Coast Artillery Corps. 34,500 

-• 230,000 


To this total should be added officers and men for the Sanitary, Quarter¬ 
master, Ordnance Department, etc., appropriate to a force of this strength, 
amounting approximately to 30,000 officers and men. Including Philippine 
scouts, 21,000, the grand total becomes 281,000. 


From “Statement of a Proper Military Policy for the United States ,” prepared 

by the War College 

i 

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF HOME SERVICE 

General distribution of Coast Artillery troops in fortified areas. —Coast 
Artillery stations should correspond to the fortified areas on the seacoast, and 
these are indicated by the position of the harbor defenses, which are at present 
located at follows: 


Portland, Me. 
Portsmouth, N. H. 
Boston. 

New Bedford. 
Narragansett Bay. 
Long Island Sound. 
New York. 

The Delaware. 
Baltimore. 


The Potomac. 
Chesapeake Bay. 
Cape Fear. 
Charleston. 
Savannah. 
Tampa. 

Key West. 
Pensacola. 

Mobile. 


New Orleans. 
Galveston. 

San Diego. 

Los Angeles. 
San Francisco. 
Puget Sound. 
The Columbia. 


General distribution of mobile troops in strategic areas. —The influence of 
harbor defenses is limited to the areas within the range of their guns. To 
provide harbor defenses without mobile forces necessary to cover the unpro- 
























15 


tected intervals that lie between them would be comparable with attempting to 
make a house burglar proof by barring the doors and leaving the windows 
open. There is not a case in history where seacoast fortifications, efficiently 
manned, have been captured by direct attack from the sea. In all cases of 
capture mobile land forces have been employed for the purpose, and an enemy 
that hopes for success must undertake landing operations against us. We 
must therefore decide upon a rational distribution of our mobile forces to 
meet this contingency. 


Summary of the Special National Defense Report Prepared by the War College 

Division of the General Staff 

It shows that the army itself considers that as a proper military policy to 
secure continental United States from attack it is necessary to have a mobile 
army of 1,500,000 fully or partially trained men. It makes the following 


specific recommendations for the organization it believes necessary: 

Regular Army—• 

With the colors.. 121,000 

Reserves at the end of eight-year enlistment period. 379,000 


Total. 500,000 

Continental Army— 

Under training, three months a year for each of three years. 500,000 

On furlough, subject to three months’ additional training before 

taking the field. 500,000 

Organized militia— 

No provision beyond annual appropriation of $7,000,000 and 


repeal of all acts requiring State soldiers to be received into 
United States service in advance of any other force in time 
of war. 

Grand total, regular and continental. 1,500,000 

In estimating the cost of this establishment the report figures as follows for 
the first year: 

Regular army . . .. $25S,9G0,000 

Continentals. 87,500,000 

Militia. 7,000,000 


Total 


$353,460,000 


From the Report of the Chief of Coast Artillery 
The Congress of the United States has appropriated $175,000,000 in the 
installation of our present system of coast defenses. All approved projects as 
recommended by the Endicott and the National Coast Defense Boards are now 
practically completed. 

Unfortunately, however, in connection with the installation of this coast 
defense equipment, there has been no parallel attempt by legislation to pro¬ 
vide for manning it. and until such provision be made, our coast defenses can 
not be considered as adequate. 

Defenses constructed and appropriated for Officers Men 

Regular Coast Artillery required for all mines, guns, and 

mortars in canal and insular ports. 

Regular Coast Artillery required for all mines and for 
one-half of the guns and mortars in the United States. 


291 


Total Regular Coast Artillery required. 

Militia Coast Artillery required for one-half of the guns 
and mortars in the United States. 


940 
1,231 
711 


6,800 

23,047 

29,S47 

17,329 

47,176 


Grand total, Regulars and Militia required. 1,942 

The present legally authorized strength of the Regular Coast Artillery Corps 
is 701 officers (exclusive of chaplains) and 19,019 men. From the table it ap- 


























16 


pears that the present authorized strength is short 530 officers and 10,828 
enlisted men of the strength necessary to man our coast fortifications under 
this approved policy on the basis of the minimum number of officers and men 
necessary for an efficient service. 

As the defenses outside of continental United States have been completed 
and made ready for their garrisons, it has been necessary to transfer to these 
a considerable number of Coast Artillery troops from the home fortifications to 
provide the requisite manning bodies. When the over-sea fortifications are 
complete, 291 officers and 6,S00 men will be required for duty outside of the 
United States. This will leave in the United States only 410 officers and 12,219 
men, which is approximately 44 per cent of the officers and 53 per cent of the 
enlisted men necessary for providing a minimum manning body for all mines 
and for that one-half of the guns and mortars which it is contemplated shall 
be manned by Regular troops. 

Apart from this, the action of the coast States has been most discouraging in 
their failure to provide Coast Artillery personnel from the State forces for the 
manning body of the other half of the gun and mortar batteries in the United 
States. Of the Til officers and 17,329 enlisted men, which it was hoped and 
expected the States would furnish for this purpose, there were, at the 1915 
annual inspection, only 440 officers and 7,438 enlisted men organized and 
available. 

Attention is invited to the following statement of the personnel required for 
the gun and mine defenses of the United States, the same for the insular pos¬ 
sessions, and a summary giving the totals and showing the shortage of the 
Regular Coast Artillery: 


\ 


17 


COAST ARTILLERY PERSONNEL REQUIRED AFTER ELIMINATING BATTERIES DECLARED OBSOLETE 
BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT BOARD OF REVIEW 



Gen¬ 

eral 

offi¬ 

cers 


Gun 

defense 

Mine defense 

Field 

offi¬ 

cers 

1 

Cap¬ 

tains 

Lieu¬ 

ten¬ 

ants 

Enlisted 

men 

Field 

offi. 

cers 

Cap¬ 

tains 

Lieu¬ 

ten¬ 

ants 

En- 
14-ted 
men 

UNITED STATES 









Portland. 

9 

29 

58 

2.517 

. 2 

5 

8 

355 

Portsmouth. 

2 

8 

17 

541 


1 

3 

121 

Boston. 

10 

30 

66 

2.852 

2 

5 

8 

355 

New Bedford. 

2 

7 

10 

225 


1 

3 

117 

Narragansett Bay. 

7 

24 

52 

2.149 

i 

3 

5 

262 

Long Island Sound. 

7 

24 

50 

1,657 

3 

8 

16 

706 

Eastern New York. 

4 

16 

31 

1.196 

1 

3 

5 

211 

Southern New York. 

7 

24 

49 

2.341 

1 

3 

5 

229 

Sandy Hook. 

4 

15 

28 

1,417 

1 

3 

5 

216 

The Delaware . 

5 

14 

28 

1.103 

1 

3 

5 

210 

Baltimore. 

5 

1* 

29 

916 


1 

3 

159 

The Potomac . 

4 

11 

22 

762 


1 

3 

130 

Chesapeake Bay. 

6 

17 

35 

1,467 

i 

3 

5 

227 

The Cape Fear. 

3 

7 

14 

412 


1 

3 

133 

Charleston. 

4 

12 

24 

1.105 


1 

3 

131 

Savannah . 

3 

9 

15 

601 


1 

3 

134 

Key West. 

3 

11 

20 

776 

i 

3 

5 

207 

Tampa. 

4 

8 

16 

430 

l 

3 

5 

243 

Pensacola . 

3 

11 

22 

841 


1 

3 

136 

Mobile. 

3 

8 

15 

542 


1 

3 

130 

New Orleans . 

3 

8 

16 

512 


1 

3 

122 

Galveston. 

3 

12 

23 

892 


1 

3 

126 

San Diego . 

4 

11 

20 

573 


1 

3 

125 

Los Angeles . 

4 

12 

22 

571 


1 

3 

118 

San Francisco . 

10 

34 

66 

3.301 

i 

4 

7 

342 

The Columbia . 

5 

14 

28 

1,171 

i 

3 

5 

239 

Puget Sound . 

11 

40 

83 

3.788, 

1 

3 

5 

234 

Total . 

135 

430 

859 

34,658 

18 

65 

128 

5,718 


One-half gun defense. . . 
Office Chief of Coast 

Artillery. 

District headquarters. . . 


1 

3 

68 

1 

6 

215 

5 

430 

17,329 

* * 


* * 

.... 

Grand total Regulars. 

United States . 


4 

93 

285 

558 

23,047 




.... 

INSULAR POSSESSIONS 

Oahu. 



5 

15 

36 

1.368 


2 

4 

165 

Manila Bay . 



8 

21 

45 

1,960 

2 

5 

12 

510 

Subic Bay . 



2 

7 

10 

319 


1 

2 

129 

Cristobal. 



6 

12 

31 

926 

1 

2 

4 

228 

Balboa. 



4 

13 

28 

978 

1 

2 

4 

217 

Total . . .. 



25 

68 

150 

5,551 

4 

12 

26 

1,249 

District headquarters. . . 


2 

4 






Grand total, insular 

possessions . 


2 

33 

80 

176 

6.800 





Grand total Regu- 











lars, United States 
and insular pos- 

sessions. 


6 

126 

365 

734 

29,847 






SUMMARY 


Regulars 


United 

States 


Insular 

posses¬ 

sions 


Total 


Militia. 

United 

States 


Companies. 206 61 267 160 

Total officers. 940 291 1,231 711 






























































































18 


OFFICERS BY GRADES 


Major general . 
Brigadier generals . 

Colonels. 

Lieutenant colonels 

Majors. 

Captains. 

Lieutenants. 

Total. 


Regulars 

Militia 

1 

. . 

5 

• « 

25 

13 

25 

13 

76 

41 

365 

215 

734 

429 

1,231 

711 


SHORTAGE OF REGUI-AR COAST ARTILLERY 



general „ eneral 

Colonel 

Lieu¬ 

tenant 

colonel 

Major 

Cap¬ 

tain 

First 

lieu¬ 

tenant 

Second 

lieu¬ 

tenant 

Total 

officer 

En¬ 

listed 

men 

Required. 

1 5 

25 

25 

76 

365 

367 

367 

1,231 

29,847 

Authorized . .. 

1 

14 

14 

42 

210 

210 

210 

701 

19,019 

Shortage ... 

1 4 

11 

11 

34 

155 

157 

157 

530 

10,828 


If Congress will provide for the shortage shown above, the Regular Coast 
Artillery will be able to man efficiently all mine defenses and its share of the 
gun defenses. To provide for this shortage will involve an annual cost of 
approximately $5,750,000, which is a comparatively small cost for the efficient 
use of armament which has cost so much more. The cost of providing this 
shortage is shown in the following table: 


ESTIMATED (EVENTUAL) ANNUAL COST 

Pay of officers. 

Pay of enlisted men. 

Rations, enlisted men. 

Clothing, enlisted men. 


$1,403,280 

2,998,908 

958,344 

390,575 


Total . . 


$5,757,107 


AMMUNITION 

The most serious deficiency that exists in accessory material for the sea coast 
defenses now installed in continental United States is the shortage in ammuni¬ 
tion. The policy followed heretofore has contemplated the accumulation of the 
so-called two hours’ allowance for half the armament in continental United 
States, an allowance assumed to be sufficient for the duration of a single en¬ 
gagement. The operations of the present European War have proved conclu¬ 
sively that that allowance is inadequate, and that the rule to be followed in the 
accumulation of ammunition should be that which should supply in the accu¬ 
mulation of all other military supplies, namely, that the quantities on hand at 
the outbreak of war should be such as to enable the Government to conduct a 
war of the first magnitude for such a period as will enable the industrial and 
manufacturing agencies of the country to be organized and to become operative 
to the extent of maintaining the needs of the Army after the depots shall have 
been exhausted. 

AIR CRAFT 

The recent development of air craft and its extensive and important use in 
the direction of heavy artillery fire during the present European War, leaves no 
doubt as to the necessity for early action looking toward the provision of an 
adequate number of air craft at the seacoast defenses, not alone for scouting 
and the direction of our fire, but also to combat any such craft which the 
enemy may attempt to use in connection with the observation of his fire and: 
the attack of our batteries, which are generally unprotected against overhead 
attack, except as to magazines. 


From Secretary Garrison's Report 

There are some who decry taking any precautions of making any prepara¬ 
tions of the military power of the Nation because they say it will not prevent 

































19 


war but will provoke it. Taking up the last question first, the answer lias 
already been made to this. Men and nations must prepare to meet their 
responsibilities; if it is inadvisable to develop strength sufficient to repel wrong 
because such developed strength may be misused, human nature has indeed 
reached an impasse. Why should it be presumed that a just man or a just 
nation will cease to be just because it has the power to be unjust? We must 
either trust others or trust ourselves. 

As to preparation for war preventing war, that misstates the position of the 
sensible advocate of preparedness. It is not asserted that it prevents it, but 
it is asserted that it tends to prevent it. and in many instances has been dem¬ 
onstrated to have prevented it. The military force prepared by the municipality 
—that is, the police—does not prevent crime, but it tends to prevent it, and it 
undoubtedly minimizes the aggressions of the wrong-doer against the lives and 
property of the right-doer. 

So long as Right and Wrong exist in the world, there will be an inevitable 
conflict between them. The Right-doers must be prepared to protect and 
defend the Right as against Wrong. Their preparation will tend to prevent 
the triumph of Wrong; and in those instances in which it does not prevent 
the attempt it can prevent the success of the attempt. 


Extract from Article by Herbert (/Kick in La Follette's Magazine 

"Never within the memory of man has a peaceful policy been so safe for us 
as now. There is nowhere on earth a nation strong or weak with the motive of 
attacking us, and few strong enough to do so if the motive existed. Even in 
our state of unpreparedness, an attack on us is such a fearful tiling to con¬ 
template to an exhausted and war-torn fellowship of nations that the danger 
may be regarded as nil, for many years to come. 

"And yet. the fever and delirium of war has so far engendered mob- 
psycliology in us that the cry for a great army and a mighty navy is louder, 
if not more general, than for a long time. It is as senseless as the action of 
the man who runs for his gun when he sees every possible foe disarmed or 
gasping in exhaustion after a free fight. 

“Even if we expect to adopt a policy of ‘preparedness,’ the same thing now 
is to wait, because we can do so safely. The whole machinery of war is on 
the proving grounds of the battlefields, now, and if we begin a great program 
of warlike construction, we are sure to build unwisely. Shall we build forts? 
There is some reason to think that forts are no longer of any use; and every 
reason to believe that they will have to be built on new plans which have not 
yet been worked out. Shall we build dreadnaughts? Or submarines? Who 
knows until after this war is over what sort of warships will be obsolete? 
Shall we build navies for the air? We do not know whether the monoplane, 
the biplane, the Dunn airship, the small heavier-than-air machine or the large, 
the hydro-aeroplane, the non-rigid dirigible, or the Zeppelin is best, nor how 
valuable in war any of them are. There is some reason to think that entire 
armies will be carried on airships in the next war. with their artillery. At a 
time when it is so perfectly safe to wait and see what develops when the data 
of this war are worked out, it would be as foolish for us to begin a great 
program of military expansion, as for a steel corporation to construct great 
new plants on an old system, in the face of experiments which bid fair to 
render all the new plants worthless.” 


From the President's Message to Congress , December 7, 1915 

PROGRAM FOR ARMY 

It is with these ideals in mind that the plans of the Department of War for 
more adequate national defense were conceived, which will be laid before you, 
and which I urge you to sanction and put into effect as soon as they can be 
properly scrutinized and discussed. They seem to me the essential first steps, 
and they seem to me for the present sufficient. 

They contemplate an increase of the standing force of the regular army for 
its present strength of 5,023 officers and 102,985 enlisted men of all services to 
a strength of 7.130 officers and 134,707 enlisted men, or 141,843, all told, all 



20 


services, rank and file, by. the addition of 52 companies of coast artillery, 15 
companies of engineers, 10 regiments of infantry, 4 regiments of field artillery 
and four aero squadrons, besides 750 officers required for a great variety of 
extra service, especially the all-important duty of training the citizen force of 
which I shall presently speak; 792 non-commissioned officers for service in 
drill, recruiting and the like and the necessary quota of enlisted men for the 
quartermaster corps, the hospital corps, the ordnance department and other 
similar auxilary services. These are the additions necessary to render the 
army adequate for its present duties, duties which it has to perform not only 
upon our own continental coasts and borders and at our interior army posts, 
but also in the Philippines, in the Hawaiian Islands, at the isthmus and in 
Porto Rico. 

TRAINED BODY OF 400,000 

By way of making the country ready to assert some part of its real power 
promptly and upon a larger scale, should occasion arise, the plan also con¬ 
templates supplementing the army by a force of 400,000 disciplined citizens, 
raised in increments of 133,000 a year throughout a period of three years. 
This it is proposed to do by a process of enlistment under which the service¬ 
able men of the country would be asked to bind themselves to serve with the 
colors for purposes of training for short periods throughout three years, and 
to come to the colors at call at any time throughout an additional “furlough” 
period of three years. This force of 400,000 men would be provided with 
personal accoutrements as fast as enlisted and their equipment for the field 
made ready to be supplied at any time. They would be assembled for training 
at stated intervals at convenient places in association with suitable units of 
the regular army. Their period of annual training would not necessarily ex¬ 
ceed two months in the year. 

It would depend upon the patriotic feeling of the younger men of the country 
whether they responded to such a call to service or not. It would depend upon 
the patriotic spirit of the employers of the country whether they made it pos¬ 
sible for the younger men in their employ to respond under favorable condi¬ 
tions or not. I, for one, do not doubt the patriotic devotion either of our 
young men or of those who give them employment—those for whose benefit and 
protection they would in fact enlist. I would look forward to the success of 
such an experiment with entire confidence. 

At least so much by way of preparation for defense seems to me to be 
absolutely imperative now. We cannot do less. 

From Secretary Garrison's Report 

The policy as proposed provides for the over-sea garrisons in accordance 
with the approved plan of 1913, and for the presence in continental United 
States of approximately 50.000 mobile army troops and 20.000 Coast Artillery 
troops, together with the necessary auxiliary troops, etc. 

The total of the enlisted men and officers in the Regular Army, when the 
plan has been completely carried out, would be 141,843. 

It is proposed that the term of enlistment in the Regular Army shall be a 
term of years with the colors and a term of years on furlough, during which 
latter period the obligation would be to return to the colors in the event, of 
war or the imminence thereof. Under this scheme there would always be in 
the country a large number of men who had been trained in the Regular Army 
and who, during the period mentioned, would be subject to the call of the 
Nation to be placed in the Regular Army or to be held in reserve to supply 
wastage or to be utilized in whatever way was thought best. 

The plan necessitates the raising of tiie following additional organizations 
and proposes to do this in two fiscal years, one-half in the next fiscal year and 
the other in the succeeding one: 

10 regiments of Infantry, 

4 regiments of Field Artillery, 

52 companies of Coast Artillery, 

15 companies of Engineers, 

4 aero squadrons. 

A\ ith respect to providing officers and reserve officers, it is proposed to 
organize a certain number of cadet companies, to be attached to regiments or 


21 


other appropriate units of cavalry, field artillery, infantry, engineers, coast 
artillery and signal troops. These cadets will be recruited from the National 
Guard and from students and graduates of educational institutions giving 
military instruction as well as those of other colleges and universities. They 
will receive special pay, and will engage to serve one year in the cadet com¬ 
panies and five years in the officers reserve corps if found qualified therefor. 
Their year of service will be one of intensive training in all positions in the 
company from that of private to that of commissioned officer. On completion 
of this training, if found qualified, they will be commissioned in the officers 
reserve corps with such grade as is warranted by tlieir respective degrees of 
proficiency. 

It may, however, be found more practicable to consider as an alternative 
scheme the proposition which has been advanced of reorganizing the military 
departments now being maintained in various educational institutions under 
the direction of officers of the Army, detailed under the law for that purpose, 
so as to make them in effect officers’ training schools. The students would 
receive practical training in annual camps of instruction and on graduation 
could be commissioned in the Army for a limited period—say one year—as 
additional second lieutenants for further intensive training, after which they 
would be commissioned in the officers reserve corps in the grades for which 
they have demonstrated qualification. 

Hut. besides such sources for reserve officers, it is also proposed, under suit¬ 
able regulations and after proper examination, to commission in the reserve 
any other qualified citizens. They will be commissioned, up to and including 
the grade of major, in the various arms, corps, and departments. Under this 
provision it is proposed to utilize the services not only of members of the 
National Guard, graduates of military and other educational institutions, and 
those who have received sufficient training in the so-called business men’s 
camps, but also of civil engineers, railroad men, those engaged in various 
kinds of motor transportation, including motor cyclists, aviators, etc. Any 
such reserve officers may organize and bring into the general reserve of the 
Army bodies of men engaged in their respective occupation. 

Additional training for all reserve officers may be given, so far as appropri¬ 
ations made for that purpose will permit, in connection with the training of 
the continental army and by attaching them for service in the practical 
exercises of the Regular Army. 

It is proposed to organize the mobile troops in the United States into three 
infantry divisions, a cavalry division, with two extra regiments of cavalry and 
the necessary auxiliary troops required for such units in accordance with the 
approved Tables of Organization. 

In addition to the above, there are at home and abroad 1,027 officers of the 
staff departments and extra officers provided by law, and 50 veterinarians. The 
plan calls for 750 more officers for the proper execution of this plan, involving, 
as it must, the training of the Continental Army, and more cooperation with 
the National Guard and with those educational institutions which have 

military courses. 

In addition to the enumerated forces in the Regular Army, there must be 
provided a total of 20,283 men for the Quartermaster Corps, Hospital Corps, 
Ordnance Department, recruiting service, school detachments, etc., including 
792 additional noncommissioned officers to aid in training the citizen soldiers. 

Thus the total of the officers and enlisted men in the Regular Army, as 
proposed above, at home and abroad, will be: 

Officers. 7,080 

Veterinarians. 50 

Enlisted men. 134,707 

To obtain this result, the plan calls for the following new organizations: 

10 regiments of Infantry, 

4 regiments of Field Artillery, 

52 companies of Coast Artillery, 

15 companies of Engineers, 

4 aero squadrons. 





22 


Using reserve materiel as far as available to equip new organizations, the 
estimated cost of the Regular Army on the proposed plan of 7,086 officers, 50 
veterinarians, and 134,707 enlisted men will be $127,234,559.70. It is proposed, 
however, to provide for the additional organizations in two annual equal in¬ 
crements, so that the first year the cost of the proposed Army would be $111,- 
035,716.08. To this must be added for the first year’s cost the cost of canton¬ 
ments at over-sea garrisons, amounting to $600,000, making the total for the 
first year $111,635,716.08. 

At the present time the Federal Government appropriates for or on behalf 
of the National Guard an average of $6,614,532.13 annually. The States indi¬ 
vidually appropriate for their respective guard an aggregate of $6,244,214.98 
annually. It is proposed this year to increase the Federal appropriation to 
$ 10 , 000 , 000 . 

Using reserve materiel to the extent available for the personal accoutrement 
of the Continental Army and not furnishing them with full complement of 
wagon transportation, horses for cavalry, etc., it is estimated that the cost of 
the first year, when 133,000 men are to be trained, will be approximately 
$15,000,000; the second year, when an additional 133,000 are to be trained, the 
cost will be approximately $29,500,000; and the third year, when the whole 
400,000 will be under training, the cost will be approximately $45,000,000, and 
this will be the annual cost of the system when in complete operation. 

The first year the estimated items of cost would be as follows: 


For the Regular Army. $111,635,716.08 

For the Continental Army. 15,000,000.00 

For the National Guard. 10,000,000.00 


Total 


136,635,716.08 


When the system is in complete operation, without considering reserves of 
the different organizations, the results as to numbers and cost would be as 
follows: 

Officers 

and enlisted Total cost 
men 


Regular Army. 

National Guard . .. 
Continental Army . 


141,843 $127,234,559.70 

129.000 10.000,000.00 

400,000 45,000.000.00 


Total. 670,843 • 182,234,559.70 

With respect to reserve material: 

In addition to material in the hands of the Regular Army, the National 
Guard, and the Continental Army already provided for in previously stated 
estimates, there should be provided and kept in reserve material of the kind 
which can not be obtained with reasonable promptness, as follows: 


Quartermaster material. $19,474,390.97 

Ordnance material. 74,582,237.85 

Medical supplies. 716 423.81 

Signal material. 7,530,928.45 

Engineer material. 2,022,280.00 


Total . 104,326,261.08 


It is deemed best to provide for this accumulation in four annual increments 
at the annual rate of $26,081,565.27. 

It is proposed to supplement the Army that is constantly under arms by a 
force of 400,000 men raised in increments of 133,000 a year, obligated to devote 
a specified time to training for a period of three years, and then to be on fur¬ 
lough for a period of three years without obligation excepting to return to the 
colors in the event of war or the imminence thereof. For the purpose of con¬ 
venience this force has been designated the Continental Army. It is proposed 
to recruit it territorially according to population; to have it subjected to short 
periods of intensive training, and in addition to what officers may be developed 




















23 


from its own operations, to obtain officers for it from those who have served 
in the National Guard, those who have served in the United States Army and 
are no longer upon its active list, and those who, by training acquired in col¬ 
leges and schools or in other ways, have become equipped with sufficient mili¬ 
tary information and experience to make them available, and in the ways 
above more particularly described. It is the purpose to have the membership 
of this force assembled at convenient places and have there such portions of 
the Regular Army to assist in their training as are desirable, and to obtain 
all the benefit which can be obtained from intensive training over such a period 
of time as is possible. For the purposes of the necessary figuring upon costs, 
etc., as well as for military reasons, the period proposed is two months. It is 
recognized, however, that with respect to this period of training and other 
features of the plan a final wise determination can only be reached after the 
fullest interchange of views between those who collectively represent the 
wisdom, experience, and knowledge to determine these matters properly. 

With respect to pay, it is proposed that the officers and men shall receive 
pay on the same basis as the Regular Army for the time actually occupied. 

For the purpose of ascertaining the requirements with respect to the coast- 
defense fortifications, the Secretary of War some months ago created a board 
composed of the heads of all departments having to do with this subject 
matter. Space and other considerations make it undesirable to go into the 
matter as reported upon by them, in detail; it is sufficient to say that they 
have given the entire subject full consideration, aided by reports and sugges¬ 
tions of those on the ground and familiar therewith. Under their instructions 
they were to report upon any needed fortifications at places where they do not 
now exist, any change at existing fortifications, and any supplements thereto. 
They have prepared elaborate reports covering all these points and have sug¬ 
gested a total expenditure during the next four years of $80,000,000 in annual 
increments of $20,000,000 each. 

In similar manner the heads of the various departments which have to do 
with equipment and supplies have studied the situation with a view to ascer¬ 
taining what materiel should be on hand for use by a force of 500,000 men in 
addition to what would be in their hands at the outbreak of hostilities. The 
result of this study was an aggregate of approximately $104,000,000. to be 
accumulated throughout the period of four years by the expenditure annually 
of $20,000,000. 

SEACOAST FORTIFICATIONS 

The board before mentioned reported an irreducible minimum for additional 
seacoast defenses, necessary accessories, and an adequate reserve of ammuni¬ 
tion, totaling $81,677,000, of which there would be used : 


In continental United States. $60,540,000 

Overseas.. 21,137,000 


This board estimates that appropriations can be expended to the greatest 
advantage at an annual rate of approximately $20,000,000, thus completing the 
work in four years. 

If these requirements are met, the results would be as follows, so far as cost 
is concerned: 

For the first year: 

For the personnel, etc. of the Regular Army, National 


Guard and Continental Army. $136,635,716.08 

For reserve material. 26,081,565.27 

For seacoast defenses. 20,000.000.00 


Total. 182,717.281.35 

For the second year: 

For the Regular Army. 127,234,559.70 

National Guard. 10,000,000.00 

Continental Army. 29,500,000.00 

Reserve material. 26,081,565.27 

Seacoast defenses. 20,000.000.00 


Total . 212,816,124.97 
















24 


For the third and fourth year: 

Regular Army. 

National Guard. 

Continental Army. 

Reserve material. 

Seacoast defenses. 


127,234,559.70 

10,000,000.00 

45,000,000.00 

26.0S1.565.27 

20 , 000 . 000.00 


Total. 

Annually thereafter: 
Regular Army . . 
National Guard . 
Continental Army 


228,316,124.97 


127,234,559.70 

10,000,000.00 

45,000,000.00 


Total 


182,234,559.70 


Summary of the Report of the War College 

For the Army the War College recommended: 

1. Expenditure in 1916-1917 of approximately $500,000,000 to produce' a 
mobile army under Federal control, which, with its reserves, would total 
1,500,000 in six years; 500,000 fully trained regulars and the remainder 
continentals. 

2. Increasing by 50 per cent the equipment and personnel of the coast artil¬ 
lery in four years at a total cost of $81,000,000. 

3. Accumulation in four vears of reserve ammunition and material worth 
$104,000,000. 

Summary of Secretary Garrison's Modification of the foregoing 

recommendations 

For the army: 

1. Expenditure within six years of approximately $600,000,000 to produce a 
total mobile Federal force of 1,000.000 men, 141,000 regulars and 800,000 con¬ 
tinentals, this force to be in addition to the national guard, now numbering 
129.000. 

2. Expenditure of the full $81,000,000 recommended by the War College and 
board of review for new coast defenses. 

3. Expenditure of the full $104,000,000 recommended by the experts for 
reserve material. 


Extract from an Editorial by Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin 
The Government arsenal at Philadelphia is today making a 3.8 inch common 
shrapnel at a cost of only $7.94, while at the same time it is paying private 
firms for the identical shrapnel exactly $17.50. The Government makes a 
31-second combination fuse for $2.92. For this same fuse it pays the private 
maker just $7.00. The Government makes a 3-inch finished shrapnel case at a 
cost of only $1.75. It pays the private manufacturing concern $3.06 for the 
same article. The Government makes a gun carriage for 3-inch rifled field 
gun at exactly $2,510.60. It pays the private manufacturer $3,39S.S2 for the 
same gun carriage. The Government has manufactured caissons for $1,128.67 
and it has paid private concerns $1,744.10 for the same caisson. The Govern¬ 
ment filled one of its own orders for ammunition at its own arsenal which cost 
$1,900,064. It saved on this order $979,840, for it would have cost exactly 
$2,879,904 if filled by private manufacturers. 


Article 


3 S-inch Common Shrapnel. 

31-second combination Fuse. 

3-inch Finished Shrapnel Case.. 
Gun-Carriages for 3-inch Rifles.. 

Caissons. 

Order Ammunition. 


Purchase 
price from 
private 
firms 

$17.50 

7.00 

3.06 

3.39S.82 

1,744.10 

2.879.904.00 


Cost of 
manufacture 
at Govern¬ 
ment plant 

$7.94 

2.92 

1.75 

2,510.60 

1.128.67 

1,900,064.00 


Profit 


$9.56 
4.OS 
1.31 
S8S.22 
615.43 
979,840.00 




















25 


Some of the opposition to preparedness is based on the enormous profits 
which go to the manufacturers of munitions of war. Representative Clyde 
Tavenner has been a leader in a movement to have all munitions of war 
manufactured by the Government. Ilis speech, in which he gives figures show¬ 
ing the profits on munitions, was printed on pages 4596-4002 of the Congres¬ 
sional Record for February 27, 1914. As long as the supply lasts, copies of 
this issue of the Record may be bought from the Supt. of Documents, Gov¬ 
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D. C., for ten cents. Remittance should 
be made by money order as he does not accept stamps, checks, or defaced coins. 


From Secretary Garrison's Report 

With respect to the present adoption or adaptation of the so-called Swiss 
system or the so-called Australian system, whatever degree of excellence may 
be ascribed to either or both of said systems as applied to and operated in their 
respective spheres, it must be recognized that our present conditions differ 
radically therefrom. 

Each of said systems requires compulsory service and starts in the public 
schools; each requires more or less control of the latter for its successful 
operation; each calls for a large number of local officials whose conduct is 
controlled by the central authority. These local officials, among their many 
duties, must keep track of the boys, distribute arms and equipment thereto, 
and if necessary receive the same on storage—inspect at unexpected times and 
report the results, and in general, manage affairs locally. The Federal Gov¬ 
ernment at this time has no Constitutional power to legislate with respect to 
the public school system of the States; it has no officials itself whose duties 
would permit them to do the things required to be done, and no power or 
right to require the State or local officials to do the same. Each locality would 
have to have a complete corps of such officials; and when the number and 
location of our public schools throughout the country are considered, some 
idea will be obtained of the magnitude of the task. These officials, under our 
system of government would have to be Federal officials unless the Constitu¬ 
tion were radically altered. In communities where the services of local 
mayors and other local officials can be utilized by the central government, 
things are possible which are not possible or practicable under our system 
of government. Enough has been said to demonstrate that to get something 
done now—something that is well worth while—the best course is to recognize 
and operate under existing conditions. The other course is to imagine a vain 
thing and accomplish nothing. 

Secretary of War Garrison resigned because President Wilson would not 
“irrevocably” support the continental army plan, and because he opposes the 
administration’s program of setting a definite time for Philippine independence. 

The letter of Mr. Garrison and the President’s acceptance of his resignation 
are as follows: 


War Department, Washington, D. C., February 10, 1916. 

My Dear Mr. President: I am just in receipt of yours of February 10, in 
reply to mine of February 9. It is evident that we hopelessly disagree upon 
what I conceive to lie fundamental principles. This makes manifest the im¬ 
propriety of my longer remaining your seeming representative with respect to 
these matters. 

I hereby tender my resignation as Secretary of War, to take effect at your 
convenience. Sincerely yours, 

Lindley M. Garrison. 

The President. The White House, 

Washington, D. C., February 10, 1916. 

My Dear Mr. Secretary : I must confess to feeling a very great surprise at 
your letter of to-day offering your resignation as Secretary of War. There 
has been no definite action taken yet in either of the matters to which your 
letter of yesterday referred. The whole matter is under debate and all the 
influences that work for clarity and judgment ought to be available at this 
very time. 


26 


But since you have felt obliged to take this action and since it is evident 
that your feeling in the matter is very great indeed. I feel that I would be 
only imposing a burden upon you should I urge you to retain the Secretaryship 
of War while I am endeavoring to find a successor. I ought to relieve you 
at once and do hereby accept your resignation because it is so evidently your 
desire that I should do so. 

I cannot take this important step, however, without expressing to you my 
very warm appreciation of the distinguished service you have rendered as 
Secretary of War and I am sure that in expressing this appreciation I am only 
putting into words the judgment of our fellow citizens far and wide. 

With sincere regret at the action you have felt constrained to take, sincerely 
yours, Woodrow Wilson. 

Hon. Bindley M. Garrison, Secretary of War. 

Present Secretary of War: Newton 1). Baker. 


; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

JOSEPHUS DANIELS, of Raleigh, N. 0., Secretary of the Navy, was con¬ 
firmed and commissioned Secretary of the Navy, March 5, 1913. 

List of ships of the U. S. Navy in commission 


In Full Commission : 


BATTLESHIPS-FIRST LINE 



Cost of hull, 


Speed on 


machinery, 


trial, 

Name of Vessel 

armament and 

Displacement, 

Knots 


equipage 

Tons 

per hour 

Arkansas . 

. $9,931,085.29 

26,000 

21.05 

Delaware. 

. 8.069.201.29 

20,000 

21.56 

Florida. 

. 10,241,667.15 

21,825 

20.75 

New York. 

. 11.047.5S5.SS 

27.000 

21.00 

Texas . 

. 10,736,276.36 

27.000 

21.05 

Utah. 

. S.1SS.970.S0 

21,825 

21.04 

Wyoming. 

. 9,S99,514.03 

26,000 

21.22 


BATTLESHIPS-SECOND LINE 



Connecticut. 

. $7,911,254.18 

16,000 

18.78 

Kansas. 

. 7,543,494.SI 

16,000 

18.09 

Kearsarge. 

. 5,043,591.68 

11,520 

16.82 

Kentucky. 

. 4,998,119.43 

11,520 

16.90 

Louisiana. 

. 7,367,133.03 

16.000 

18.82 

Michigan. 

. 6.795,337.76 

16,000 

18.79 

Minnesota. 

. 7,448,125.58 

16.000 

18.85 

Nebraska. 

. 6,832,796.96 

14.94S 

19.06 

New Hampshire. 

. 7,129,903.05 

16,000 

18.16 

New Jersey. 

. 6,422,107.59 

14,948 

19.18 

Rhode Island. 

. 6,419.262.08 

14.948 

19.01 

South Carolina. 

. 6.683,S74.04 

16.000 

1S.86 

Vermont. 

. 7,571,762.43 

16.000 

18.33 

Virginia. 

. 6,581,834.38 

14.94S 

19.01 


In Com mission in Reserve: 

BATTLESHIPS—FIRST LINE 

$8,519,441.25 20.000 21.01 


North Dakota 

























27 


Name of Vessel 


Alabama . 
Georgia . . 
Illinois . . 
Maine . . . 
Missouri . 
Ohio . . .. 
Oregon . . 
Wisconsin 


In Full Commission 


Name of vessel 


Cost of hull, 


Speed on 

machinery, 


trial, 

armament and 

1 Msplacement, 

Knots 

equipage 

Tons 

per hour 

L'LESTIIPS-SECOND LINE 

$4,605,820.22 

11,552 

17.01 

6,546,034.04 

14,948 

19.26 

4,621,408.82 

11,552 

17.45 

5,381,903.61 

12,500 

18.00 

5,2 8,260.55 

12,500 

18.15 

5,265,504.84 

12,500 

17.82 

6,575.032.76 

10,288 

16.79 

4,723,894.28 

11,552 

17.17 

ARMORED CRUISERS 

Dis- 


Dis- 

place- Name of vessel 

place- 

ment 


ment 

14,'00 Tennessee . 



14,500 Washington 

. 

.. 14,500 

13,680 


CRUISERS, FIRST CLASS 

Brooklyn. 9,215 Saratoga 


8,150 


Columbia 


CRUISERS, SECOND CLASS 

7,350 


CRUISERS, THIRD CLASS 


Birmingham. 

. 3,750 

Denver. 


Chattanooga. 

. 3,200 

1 >es Moines. 

3 9 00 

Chester. 


Galveston. 


Cleveland. 

. 3,200 

New Orleans. 

. 3,430 

Cincinnati. 

. 3,188 

Raleigh. 

. 3.183 

* 

DESTROYERS 


Aylwin. 

. 1,036 

Jarvis . 

740 

Bainbridge 8 . 

. 420 

Jenkins. 

. 742 

Balch. 

. 1.036 

McDougal. 

. 1,020 

Barry 8 . 

. 420 

Nicholson. 

. 1,050 

Cassin. 

. 1,020 

O’Brien. 

. 1,050 

Chauncev 8 . 

. 420 

Parker . 

. 1,036 

Conyngham. 

. 1,090 

Patterson. 

. 742 

Cummings. 

. 1.020 

Paul Jones 8 . 

420 

Cushing. 

. 1 J)50 

Perry 8 . 

420 

Dale 8 . 

. 420 

Preble 8 . 

. 420 

Decatur 8 . 

. 420 

Stewart 8 . 

. 420 

Dravton. 

. 742 

Wadsworth. 

. 1.060 

Duncan. 

. 1.014 

Warrington. 

. 742 

Ericsson. 

. 1,090 

W T hipple 8 . 

. 433 

Fanning. 

. 742 

Winslow. 

. 1,050 

Jacob Jones . 

. 1,150 




MONITORS 

l 

Cheyenne 1 . 

. 3,225 

Ozark 1 . 

. 3,225 

Monad nock 1 . 

. 3,990 

Tallahassee 1 . 

. 3,225 


SUBMARINES 


A-2. 


A -6 . 


A-3. 


A-7. 


A-4. 


B-l. 


A-5. 


B-2. 








































































28 


Dis- Dis- 

Narne of vessel place- Name of vessel place¬ 
ment meat 

submarines —Continued 

B-3. G-2 6 . 

0-1. G-3°... 

C-2. G-4... 

C-3. H-l. 

C-4. H-2. 

C-5. H-3. 

D-l .v. K-l . 

D-2. K-2. 

D-3. K-3. 

E-l. K-4. 

E-2. K-5. 

F-l. K-6. 

F-2. K-7. 

F-3. K-S. 

G-l. 


TRANSPORTS 


Buffalo. 

. 6.000 

Prairie. 

. 6,620 

Hancock. 





GUNBOATS 


Annapolis. 

. 1.010 

Pampanga. 

. 243 

Castine. 

. 1.177 

Petel 10 . 

. 620 

Dolphin. 

. 1,486 

Princeton 9 . 

. 1.010 

Elcano 10 . 

. 1.392 

Quiros .. 

. 350 

Helena. 

. 1.177 

Sacramento. 

. 1,425 

Macliias. 

. 990 

Samar. 

. 243 

Marietta. 

. 190 

Villalobos. 

. 370 

Monocacy. 

. 1.371 

Wheeling. 

. 990 

Nashville. 

. 1.085 

Wilmington . 

. 1,392 

Paducah 2 . 

. 190 

Yorktown. 

. 1J70 

Palos. 

. 890 




SUPPLY 

SHIPS 


Celtic. 

. 8,000 

Glacier. 

. 8,325 

Culgoa. 

. 6.000 

Sunni v 3 . 

. 4 325 


FUEL SHIPS 


Abarenda . 

. 6,705 

Mars. 

. 11,200 

Ajax. 

. 9.250 

Nanshan. 

. 4.950 

Arethusa. 


Neptune. 

. 19,360 

Brutus. 

. 6,600 

Nereus. 

19 000 

Caesar. 

. 5,920 

Nero. 

. 6.360 

Cyclops. 

. 19.360 

Orion. 

. 19.129 

Hector ;. 

. 11,200 

Proteus . 

. 19.000 

Jason . 

. 19.132 

Saturn . 


Jupiter. 

. 19,360 

Sterling. 


Kanawha. 

. 14,500 

Vulcan. 

. 11.200 


CONVERTED 

YACHTS 


Eagle 2 . 

. 434 

Sylph. 


Mayflower. 

. 2.690 

Yankton. 

. 975 

Scorpion.. 

. 775 




TUGS 


Accomac. 

. 187 

Arapaho . 


Active. 

. 296 

Choctaw. 


Alice. 

. 356 

Fortune.. 


Apache. 


Hercules. 

































































































29 



Dis- 


Dis- 

Name ot vessel place- 

Name of vessel 

place- 


ment 


ment 


Tugs — Con t in ned 


Iroquois. 


Powhatan .. 

194 

Iwana. 


Hapido. 


Massasoit. 

. 202 

Rocket. 


Modoc. 

. 241 

Samoset. 

225 

Mohave. 


Sebago.. 


Mohawk. 

. 420 

Sioux. 

155 

Narkeeta. 

. 102 

Sonoma. 

1,120 

Navajo. 


Sotoyomo . 

230 

Ontario. 

.. 1,120 

Standish. 

450 

Osceola. 

. 571 

Tecum seh. 

214 

Patapsco. 

. 755 

Tillamook. 


Patuxent . 

. 755 

Traffic. 

280 

Pawnee. 

.. 275 

Transfer. 


Pawtucket. 

. 225 

Triton. 

212 

Penacook ... 

. 230 

Unadilla. 

355 

Pentucket. 

. 230 

Tineas . 

441 

Peoria. 

. 487 

Vigilant. 

300 

Piscataqua. 

. 854 

Waban. 

150 

Pontiac. 

. 401 

Walnieta. 

192 

Potomac. 

. 7S5 

Wompatuck. 

462 


TENDERS TO TORPEDO VESSELS 


Alert. 

. 1,110 

Fulton. 

1,408 

Bushnell. 

. 3,580 

Iris. 

6,100 

Dixie. 

. 6,114 

Melville. 

7,150 


UNSERVICEABLE FOR WAR PURPOSES 


Boxer 3 . 

. 346 

Richmond 5 . 

2,700 

Constellation 4 . 

. 1,970 

Severn . 

1.175 

Cumberland 5 . 

. 1,800 

Southery 3 . 


Mohican. 

. 1,900 

Topeka . 

2,255 

Keina Mercedes E . .. 

. 2,835 




SPECIAL TYPES 


Baltimore (mine depot ship). 


Prometheus (repair ship) .... 

12,585 

Dubuque (mine training ship) 

1.0S5 

San Francisco (mine depot 


Hannibal (surveying ship).... 

4,000 

ship) . 

4,083 

Lebanon (ammunition ship).. 

3,285 

Solace (hospital ship). 

5,700 

Leonidas (surveying ship).... 

4,023 

Vestal (repair ship). 

12,585 

Destroyer Divisions Operating with 

Reduced Complement : 



DESTROY'ERS 


Aminen. 

742 

Paulding. 

742 

Beale. 

742 

Perkins. 

742 

Ben ham. 

1.036 

Preston. 

700 

Burrows. 

742 

Reid. 

700 

Flusser . 

700 

Roe. 

742 

Henlev. 

742 

Smith. 

700 

Jouett. 

742 

Sterett . 

742 

Lamson. 

700 

Terry. 

742 

McCall. 

742 

Walke. 

742 

Monaghan . 

742 



In Commission in Reserve : 




BATTLESHIP, 

first line 


North Dakota. 

20,000 




1 Acting tender to submarines. 2 Surveying duty. 3 Station ship. * Training ship. 
* Receiving ship. 6 Contract forfeited : being completed by Government. 8 Coast torpedo 
vessels. 8 To be surveyed and sold. 10 Suitable for harbor defense only. 























































































Name of vessel 


Dis¬ 
place- Name of vessel 

meat 


BATTLESHIPS, SECOND LINE 

r 

Alabama.:. 11,552 Missouri. 

Georgia. 14,948 Ohio. 

Illinois 1 . 11,552 Oregon. 

Maine 1 . 12,500 Wisconsin . . . 

ARMORED CRUISERS 

Colorado. 13,680 West Virginia . 

Maryland. 13,680 South Dakota . 

Pittsburg. 1,150 

CRUISERS, FIRST CLASS 

Charleston. 9,700 St. Louis . ... 

Milwaukee. 9,700 

CRUISER, SECOND CLASS 

Chicago 2 . 4.500 

CRUISERS, THIRD CLASS 

Albany 2 . 3,430 Montgomery 210 . 

Marblehead 2 . 2,072 Salem. 

DESTROYERS 

Hopkins 8 . 40S Macdonough 5 8 .. 

Hull 8 . 408 Truxton s . 

Lawrence 8 . 400 Worden 58 . 


Dis¬ 

place¬ 

ment 


12.500 
12 500 
10,288 
11.552. 


13.680 
14. 00 


9.700 


2.072 

3.750 


400 

420 

433 


TORPEDO BOAT 

Farragut 2 . 275 

MONITORS 

Amphitrite 2 . 3,990 Monterey. 4.084 

GUNBOAT 

Vicksburg. 1,010 

UNSERVICEABLE FOR WAR PURPOSES 

Hartford 4 . 2.790 Rainbow 1 . 4.360 

Philadelphia 1 . 4,410 

SPECIAL TYPE 

Panther (tender). 3,380 Vesuvius (torpedo practice 

ship). .. 930 


In Commission in Ordinary: 

CRUISER, THIRD CLASS 


Tacoma. 

. 3,200 




DESTROYERS 


Downes. 

. ^ ,072 

Trippe. 

. 742 


MONITOR 


Tonopah 5 . 

. 3,225 




TORPEDO BOATS 


Bagley. 


Dupont 2 . 

. 165 

Bailey. 


Goldsborough 2 . 

. 250 

Barney . 


Morris. 

105 

Biddle. 

. 175 

Shubrick. 


Blakely. 


Thornton 

•>0() 

Dahlgren. 

. 146 

Tiugev . 

165 

De Long . 

. 190 

























































31 


Name of vessel 

Dis- 

Dis- 

place- Name of vessel 

place- 


ment 

ment 

UNSERVICEABLE FOR WAR PURPOSES 


Intrepid 6 . 



Out of Commission : 

Indiana. 

BATTLESHIPS, SECOND LINE 

10.73S 

Iowa. 


Minneapolis. 

CRUISERS, SECOND CLASS 


Boston 29 . 

CRUISER, THIRD CLASS 


Mayrant. 

DESTROYER 


Foote 2 . 

TORPEDO BOATS 


Fox 2 . 



Mackenzie 29 . 

. 65 

Callao 9 . 

GUNBOATS 

1.010 

Don Juan de Austria 2 .. 

. 1.130 Ranger 3 . 

1,261 

Isla de Luzon 2 . 

. 1,020 Sandoval 210 .. .. 

100 

General Alava. 

TRANSPORT 

. 1.775 


Pompev. 

tender to torpedo vessels 



CONVERTED YACHTS 


Aileen 2 . 


102 Huntress . 



Dorothea 2 . 


594 Sylvia 2 . 


302 

Elfrida 210 . 


164 Vixen 2 . 


SfMi 

Gloucester 2 . 


786 Wasp 2 .‘. 


630 

Hawk 2 . 


375 




UNSERVICEABLE FOR WAR PURPOSES 



Adams 2 . 


, . 1.400 Granite State 2 . 


4 150 

Constitution 7 . 


2,200 Relief. 


3300 

Essex 2 .. 


1.375 Wolverine 2 . . .. 


685 

Gopher 2 . 


840 Yantic 2 . 


900 



BATTLESHIPS 





Probable cost, 


Probable 



hull and 


speed. 

Name of 

vessel 

machinery Displacement, 

Knots 



only 

Tons 

per hour 

Arizona. 


$6,651,848.34 

31,400 

21.00 

California. 


6,992,859.00 

32.000 

21.00 

Idaho . 


7,250.000.00 

32.000 

21.00 

Mississippi. 


7,115.000.00 

32.000 

21.00 

Nevada . 


5,945,000.00 

27.o00 

20.05 

Oklahoma. 


5,926.000.00 

27.500 

20.50 

Pennsylvania. 


7,260.000.00 

31.400 

21.00 

Number 43. 


7,069,623.00 

.... 

21.00 

Number 44. 


7,413,156.00 

.... 

21.00 

1 Receiving ship. 2 Duty with 

Naval Militia. 3 School ship. 

4 Station ship. 

5 Acting 

ship. 6 Barrack ship. 

7 Historic 

relic. 8 Coast torpedo vessel. 9 

To be surveyed 

and sold. 


10 Suitable for harbor defense only. 

















































32 


Under Construction or Authorized: 


DESTROYERS 




Per cent of 


Per 

cent of 


Ids 

completion 


I )is- completion 

Name of vessel 

place 



Name of vessel 

place 



ment 

Jan. 1, 

Feb. 1, 


ment Jan. 1, 

Feb. 1, 



1916 

1916 


1916 

1916 

Allen. 

1,075 

64.5 

67.7 

Wilkes. 

1,110 47.5 

52.0 

I >avis. 

1.075 

65.3 

69.2 

Number 69 . ... 

. 0.0 

0.0 

Porter. 

1,090 

88.3 

89.9 

Number 70 ... . 

. 0.0 

0.0 

Rowan. 

1,126 

66.1 

70.7 

Number 71 . ... 

. 0.0 

0.0 

►Sampson. 

1,126 

72.4 

75.3 

Number 72 ... . 

. 0.0 

0.0 

Shaw. 

1,110 

16.7 

18.9 

Number 73 .... 

. 0.0 

0.0 

Tucker . 

1,090 

S8.5 

89.8 

Number 74 . ... 

. 0.0 

0.0 

Wainwright . .. 

1,150 

94.S 

95.3 







SUBMARINES 



L-1 . 


98.9 

98.9 

N-7. 

. 47.4 

53.1 

1,-2. 


98.5 

98.5 

Number 60. . . . 

. 0.0 

0.0 

1,-3. 


98.1 

98.1 

Number 61.... 

. 0.0 

0.0 

L-4. 


98.1 

98.1 

0-1. 

. 0.0 

0.0 

1,-5. 


85.1 

88.5 

0-2. 

. 00 

0.0 

L-6 . 


75.4 

76.8 

0-3. 

0 0 

0 0 

L-7 . 


72.8 

74.8 

0-4. 

0 0 

0 0 

L-X . 


64.3 

72.4 

0-5. 

0 0 

0 0 

L-9. 


89.4 

91.3 

0-6. 

o o 

0 0 

1,-10. 


89.5 

90.6 

0-7. 

0 0 

0 0 

P-11. 


87.5 

87.7 

0-8. 

o o 

0 0 

Ml. 


87.5 

94.6 

0-9. 

0 0 

0 0 

Schley. 


0.0 

0.0 

0-10 . 

. 0.0 

0.0 

N-l. 


43.7 

4X.4 

0-11 . _ 

. 00 

1 8 

N-2. 


43.7 

4S.4 

0-12.. 

0 0 

1 9 

N-3. 


43.7 

48.4 

0-13 . 

0 0 

1 9 

N-4. 


53.0 

55.0 

0-14. 

. 0.0 

0.0 

N-5. 


50.5 

53.2 

0-15. 


0.0 

N-6. 


48. S 

52.0 

0-16 . 

. 0.0 

0.0 




FUEL 

SHIPS 



Maumee. 

14,500 

98.4 

99.1 

Cuyama. 

2° 8 

29.3 




TRANSPORT 



Henderson . . . 

10.000 

45.0 

47.8 







SUPPLY SHIP 



Number 1. 

8,500 

38.9 

42.9 




Note : General Order 

No. 2 

29, Oct. 

22, 1912: “The i 

ige of vessels 

in the 


Navy shall be computed from the date of the act of Congress authorizing their 
construction.” Navy Department’s endorsement No. 5087-06:11 of Nov. 0, 
1012; battleships shall be transferred from the first line to the second line on 
reaching an age of ten years. 


Compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence , Navy Department , Washington , 

D. C., October , 1915 


definitions of naval terms 

Armor: Steel plates secured to sides and important parts of ships as a pro¬ 
tection against gunfire or close external explosions. » 

Armament: Offensive weapons with which ships are equipped, such as -Mins 
and torpedoes and their tubes. 

Caliber: Diameter of the bore of a gun. 

Displacement: The weight of water displaced by the floating vessel: in other 
words, the weight of the vessel. 















































































33 


Draught : Depth of ship from keel to water line. 

Freeboard : Height from water line to main deck. 

Knot : Sea mile—2,000 yards. 

Speed : The speed of vessels is given in knots per hour. 

Battleship: A large vessel capable of steaming on the high seas, protected 
by heavy armor and carrying a heavy armament, including some guns of 
large caliber. 

Pre-dreadnaught: A battleship, usually not over 10,000 tons displacement, 
having a mixed battery—main battery of heavy guns, 8-inch or above; inter¬ 
mediate battery of guns from 4-inch to 7-inch, inclusive, and secondary 
battery of small guns less than 4-inch. 

Dreadnatjght : One-caliber big-gun battleship of 18,000 tons displacement or 
more and a speed of at least 18 knots. These vessels have a main battery 
of all big guns (11 inches or more in caliber) and no intermediate battery. 
The secondary or torpedo defense battery is composed of guns of 3-inch to 
5-inch caliber. 

Super-dreadnaught i This is a term applied to later vessels of the dread- 
naught type, where there are more than 10 big guns in the main battery, or 
a very large displacement, 25,000 tons or more, and a speed of from 21 to 
25 knots. In these the secondary or torpedo defense battery is usually of 
5-inch or 0-incli caliber. It is a rather indefinite term. 

Cruiser : A vessel capable of steaming on the high seas with sufficient free¬ 
board to keep dry in moderate weather, and with sufficient space for stores 
and fuel to permit her to steam great distances without having to visit port 
to refuel, etc. The protection and armament depend on the class. 

Light Cruiser: A cruiser whose vitals are protected by a light armored 
deck, and whose gun positions may have light protection. The displacement 
varies from 1,500 .to 5,000 tons, and speed from 1G to 30 or more knots, 
according to various designs. 

Scout: A light cruiser in which protection and armament is considerably re¬ 
duced to allow for large fuel storage space and machinery installation of 
great power to give as high a speed as possible. 

Armored Cruiser: A cruiser protected by moderately heavy armor on sides,- 
etc., armed with heavy guns, 8-inch to 12-inch as a rule, and capable of 
steaming at high speed 18 to 22 knots (approximately). The armament is 
usually mixed as in the pre-dreadnaught battleship. This class differs from 
the pre-dreadnaught battleship in that the armor and armament is lighter 
and the speed greater. The displacement varies from about 9,000 to 10.000 
tons. 

Battle Cruiser: An armored cruiser having the general dreadnaught char¬ 
acteristics of armament, i. e., main battery of all big guns (11 inches or 
more in caliber), eight or more, and no intermediate battery. Armor heavier 
than armored cruisers but lighter than dreadnaughts, and very high speed, 
from 25 to 30 knots and over, and large displacement, from 17,000 tons up. 

Torpedo Craft: Vessels whose main offensive armament is the torpedo and 
which rely on high speed, small size, and a few light guns for defense. Gen¬ 
erally capable of steaming on the high seas. 

Torpedo Boats: Small torpedo craft of from 50 to about 300 tons displace¬ 
ment. Speed varies from about 19 to 29 knots. Small or no guns. 

Destroyers: Larger torpedo craft of from about 350 to 1,100 tons displace¬ 
ment, carrying more torpedo tubes and heavier guns than torpedo boats 
(about 4-inch caliber), and having greater freeboard and speed (from about 
25 to 33 knots). 

Submarines: Vessels capable of running either on the surface of the water 
or submerged. The offensive armament is the torpedo and some of the later 
boats are equipped with light guns for defensive purposes when running on 
the surface. 

Monitor: A heavily armored, very low freeboard, light-draft vessel carrying 
two or more guns of the largest caliber (10 inches and above). Low speed, 
about 13 knots. 


34 


Compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy Department 


TOTAL NAVAL EXPENDITURES BY PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS 


Fiscal year 

1900- 1. 

1901- 2. 

1902- 3 . 

1903- 4 . 

1904- 5. 

1905- G . 

1906- 7. 

1907- S.... 

1908- 9 . 

1909- 10 _ 

1910- 11. ... 

1911- 12 _ 

1912- 13. ... 

1913- 14. .. . 

1914- 15. ... 

Great Britain 
$145,792,850 
150,569,190 
150,679,328 
173,548.058 
179.138,049 
461,117,947 
152,954,342 
151,S80,617 
156,401,161 
181,936,341 
202,056,258 

211.596.296 

224.443.296 
237,530,459 
260,714,275 

United States 

$61,721,695 

68,438,301 

82,977,641 

104,126,192 

116,655,826 

309,725,059 

98,392,144 

117,353,474 

120,421,579 

122,247,365 

111,791,980 

133,559,071 

129,787,233 

136,858,301 

141,872,786 

Germany 

$37,173,074 

46,315,800 

48,818,700 

50,544,000 

49.110.300 
54,918,000 

58.344.300 
69,133,500 
80,737,626 
95,047,820 

103,302,773 

107,178.480 

109,989,096 

112,091,125 

113,993,329 

France 

$72,683,180 

67,097,011 

59,217,558 

59,740,222 

60,178,623 

61,565,779 

59,514,296 

60,685,813 

62,194,916 

64,899,589 

74,102,439 

80,371,109 

81,692,832 

90,164,625 

123,828,872 

Total .. 

2,740,35S,467 

1,655,828,647 

3,136,727,923 

3,077,918,864 

Fiscal year 

1900-1 

Russia 

$42,101,212 

45,488,462 

Italy 

$23,829,206 

23,875,532 

Japan 

Total 

1901-2. 

$21,373,954 

$423,140,250 

1902-3. 

50,769,465 

23,522,400 

17,654,528 

433,639,620 

1903-4. 

60,01S,S95 

23.522,400 

17,553,279 

4S9,053,046 

1904-5. 

58,076,543 

24,300,000 

10,018,024 

497,477,365 

1905-6. 

60,228,444 

24,494,400 

11,378,202 

483,427,831 

1906-7. 

60,703,557 

25,865,668 

30,072,061 

485,846,368 

1907-S. 

43,012,166 

27,516,454 

35,124,346 

504,706,370 

1908-9. 

49,682,482 

30,453,697 

39,347,332 

539,238,793 

1909-10. . .. 

58,680,915 

31,812,885 

35,005,719 

589,008,759 

1910-11. . . . 

46,520,465 

40,595,204 

36,889,158 

615,25S,277 

1911-12 _ 

56,680,915 

40,7S0,9S7 

42,944.329 

673,111,187 

1912-13 _ 

82,019,633 

41,893,420 

46,510,216 

716,335,726 

1913-14... . 

117,508,657 

49,550,147 

48,105,152 

791,808,466 

1914-15_ 

128,954,733 

56,920,440 

69,111,653 

S95,396,088 

Total.. 

959,823,669 

488,932,840 

461,087,953 

8,137,447,146 


Compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Navy Department, Washington, 

D. C., October, 1015 


ACTIVE PERSONNEL 


Rank England 


Admirals of the fleet. 

O 

O 

Admirals.... 

12 

Vice Admirals. 

22 

Rear Admirals. 

58 

Captains and commanders.. 

702 

Other line officers. 

2,508 

Midshipmen at sea. 

639 

Engineer officers. 

837 

Medical officers. 

593 

Pav officers. 

750 

Naval constructors. 

122 

Chaplains. 

147 

Warrant officers. 

2,740 

Enlisted men. 

119,597 

Marine officers. 

465 

Enlisted men (marines).... 

21.414 


Total. 150,609 


July 1, 1914 


ermany 

United 

States 

France 

Japan 

2 

1 


2 

6 



6 

12 


15 

19 

22 

25 

30 

38 

154 

212 

360 

270 

2,220 

1,680 

1.419 

1,965 

448 


77 

119 

577 


505 

811 

340 

336 

390 

364 

276 

231 

211 

3SS 

162 

75 

187 

135 

30 

24 



3,183 

867 

147 

1,569 

65,797 

52,566 

60,505 

50,050 

177 

341 

5,791 

9,915 



79,197 

66,273 

63,846 

55,736 



















































35 




July 1, 1914 

July 

1, 1915 

Rank 

Admirals of the fleet. 

Russia 

Italy 

Austria- 

Hungary 

United 

►States 

1 

Admirals. 

12 

1 

1 

J. 

Vice Admirals. 

20 

10 

2 


Rear Admirals. 

21 

19 

15 

25 

Captains and commanders.. 

346 

137 

80 

211 

Other line officers. 

1.37S 

753 

558 

1,778 

Midshipmen at sea. 

- ! t t , , 

73 

175 

Engineer officers. 

53S 

326 

164 


Medical officers. 

286 

259 

84 

383 

Pay officers. 


22S 

224 

221 

Naval constructors. 

519 

107 

141 

77 

Chaplains. 

85 


11 

27 

Warrant officers. 


1,340 

387 

1,012 

Enlisted men. 

Marine officers. 

49,25S 

36,660 

7,689 

52,444 

344 

9,965 

Enlisted men (marines).... 




Total. 

52,463 

39,913 

19,531 

66,488 


Compiled bp the Office of Naval Intelligence, Navy Department, Washington, 

D. C\, October, 1915 


VESSELS BUILT 


(July 1, 1914) 



Battle¬ 
ships, 
dread- 
naught 
type i 

Battle¬ 
ships 2 

Battle¬ 
cruis¬ 
ers 3 

Ar¬ 

mored 

cruis¬ 

ers 

Cruis¬ 

ers* 

De¬ 

stroy¬ 

ers 

Tor¬ 

pedo 

boats 

Subma¬ 

rines 

Coast- ] 
defense 
vessels 5 

England. 

20 

40 

6 9 

34 

6 74 

6 167 

49 

«75 

0 

Germany. 

13 

20 

4 

9 

41 

130 

0 

27 

2 

United States.... 

S 

22 

0 

10 

15 

51 

13 

30 

4 

France . .*. 

3 

18 

0 

20 

9 

84 

135 

64 

1 

Japan . 

2 

13 

2 

13 

13 

50 

27 

13 

2 

Russia. 

0 

7 

0 

6 

9 

91 

14 

30 

2 

Italy. 

3 

8 

0 

9 

6 

32 

68 

19 

0 

Austria-Hungary . 

3 

6 

0 

2 

5 

18 

39 

6 

6 

United States to 
July 1, 1915... 

8 

22 

0 

10 

15 

57 

6 

36 

4 


1 Battleships having a main battery of all big guns (11 inches or more in caliber), ex¬ 
cept the U. S. Ss. South Carolina and Michigan, which are not considered dreadnaughts on 
account of slow speed. 

2 Battleships of (about) 10,000 tons or more displacement, and having more than one 
caliber in the main battery, and U. S. Ss. South Carolina and Michigan. 

3 Armored cruisers having guns of largest caliber in main battery and capable of taking 
their place in line of battle with the battleships. They have an increase of speed at the 
expense of carrying fewer guns in main battery, and a decrease in armor protection. 

4 Includes all unarmored cruising vessels above 1,500 tons displacement. 

6 Includes smaller battleships and monitors. No more vessels of this class are being 
proposed or built by the great powers. 

6 Includes vessels of colonies. 




















































36 


Compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Navy Department, Washington, 

D. C., October, 1015 


VESSELS BUILDING OB AUTHORIZED 

(July 1, 1914) 



Battle- 







ships, 

dread- 

naught 

Battle 

cruisers 

Cruisers 

De¬ 

stroyers 

Torpedo 

boats 

Subma¬ 

rines' 


type 






England 1 . 

16 

1 

2 17 

2 21 

0 

22 

Germany 3 . 

7 

4 

5 

24 

0 

18 

United States. . 

7 

0 

0 

11 

0 

19 

France. 

9 

0 

0 

O 

O 

0 

22 

Japan 4 . 

4 

o 

0 

2 

0 

2 

Russia 5 . 

°7 

4 

8 

44 

0 

19 

Italy. 

7 

0 

2 

15 

o 

S 

Austria-Hungary 
United States to 

4 

0 

5 

1 

24 

6 

July 1, 1915. 

9 

0 

0 

17 

0 

40 


1 England has no continuing shipbuilding policy, but usually lays down each year 4 or 5 
armored ships, with a proportional number of smaller vessels. 

2 Includes vessels of colonies. 

3 Germany has a continuing shipbuilding program, governed by a fleet law authorized 
by the Reichstag. For 1914 there are authorized 1 battleship, 1 battle cruiser, 2 cruisers, 
12 destroyers. Eventual strength to consist of 41 battleships, 20 armored cruisers, 40 
cruisers, 144 destroyers, 72 submarines. 

4 $78,837,569 authorized to be expended from 1911 to 1917 for the construction of war 
vessels. 

5 Russian shipbuilding program provides for the completion by 1918 of 4 battle cruisers, 
8 small cruisers, 36 destroyer^, and 18 submarines. 

c A fourth dreadnaught is reported as authorized in the spring of 1914 for the Black 
Sea fleet. If this report is correct, there are 8 dreadnaughts building or authorized. 

All countries now at war have greatly increased their building programs, so 
above notes do not hold good after July, 1914. 

The following vessels are not included in the tables : 

Ships over 20 years old from date of launch, unless they have been recon¬ 
structed and rearmed within 5 years. 

Torpedo craft over 15 years old. 

Transports, colliers, repair ships, converted merchant vessels, or any other 
auxiliaries. 

Vessels of less than 1,500 tons, except torpedo craft. Torpedo craft of less 
than 50 tons. 

Note.— Vessels undergoing trials are considered as completed. 


Compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Navy Department . Washington . 

D. C., October, 1915 


TIME REQUIRED TO BUILD SOME RECENT BATTLESHIPS OF THE FIVE PRINCIPAL NAVAL 

POWERS 

Date of 

contract or Keel laid 
order 


GREAT BRITAIN 

Bellerophon. 18,600 

Superb. IS,600 

Collingwood. 19,250 

Vanguard. 19,250 

Neptune. 19,900 

Monarch. 22,500 

Thunderer. 22,500 

King George V. .. 24,000 

Marlborough. . . . 25,000 


Sept., 

1906 

Dec., 

1906 

Dec., 

1906 

Feb., 

1907 

Oct., 

1907 

Feb., 

190S 

Mar., 

190S 

Apr., 

190S 

Nov., 

190S 

Jan., 

1909 

Dec., 

1909 

Apr., 

1910 

Dec., 

1909 

Apr., 

1910 

Nov., 

1910 

Jan., 

1911 

■-—, 

1911 

Ja n., 

1912 


July, 

1907 

Feb., 

1909 

Nov., 

1907 

May, 

1909 

Nov., 

1908 

Apr., 

1910 

Feb., 

1909 

Mar., 

1910 

Sept., 

1909 

Jan., 

1911 

Mar., 

1911 

Apr., 

1912 

Feb., 

1911 

June, 

1912 

Oct., 

1911 

Nov., 

1912 

Oct., 

1912 

June, 

1914 













37 


Names 

Ton- 

Date of 
contract or 

Keel laid 

Launched 

Conimis- 


nage 

order 



sioned 

GERMANY 

Nassau. 

18,602 

May, 1906 

Aug., 1907 

Mar., 

1908 

Oct., 

1909 

Westfalen. 

18,602 

Oct., 1906 

Aug., 1907 

July, 

1908 

Nov. 

, 1909 

Posen. 

IS,602 

Apr., 1907 

July, 1907 

Dec., 

190S 

May, 

1910 

Rheinland. 

18,602 

Apr., 1907 

July, 1907 

Sept., 

1908 

Apr., 

1910 

Helgoland. 

22,440 

July, 190S 

Dec., 1908 

Sept., 

1909 

Aug. 

, 1911 

Kaiser. 

24,110 

Sept., 1909 

Dec., 1909 

Mar., 

1911 

Aug. 

, 1912 

Prinzregent Luit- 

pold. 

24,406 

Apr., 1910 

Jan., 1911 

Feb., 

1912 

Aug., 1913 

UNITED STATES 

South Carolina.. 16,000 

July, 1906 

Dec., 1906 

July, 

1908 

Mar. 

, 1910 

Michigan. 

16,000 

July, 1906 

Dec., 1906 

May, 

1908 

Jan., 

1910 

Delaware. 

20,000 

Aug., 1907 

Nov., 1907 

Feb., 

1909 

Apr., 

, 1910 

North Dakota... 

20,000 

Aug., 1907 

Dec., 1907 

Nov., 

1908 

Apr., 

1910 

Utah. 

21,825 

Nov., 190S 

Feb., 1909 

Dec., 

1909 

Aug. 

, 1911 

Wyoming. 

26,000 

Oct., 1909 

Feb., 1910 

May, 

1911 

Sept. 

, 1912 

Texas. 

27,000 

Dec., 1910 

Apr., 1911 

May, 

1912 

Mar. 

, 1914 

FRANCE 

Verite. 

14,636 

May, 1902 

, 1903 

May, 

1907 

Jan., 

1908 

Voltaire. 

18,029 

Dec., 1906 

.Tune, 1907 

Jan., 

1909 

Aug., 

1911 

Danton. 

18,029 

May, 1906 

.Tan., 1908 July, 

1909 Feb., 

1911 

Jean Bart. 

23,092 

Aug., 1910 

Nov., 1910 Sept., 

1911 June, 

1913 

JAPAN 

Satsuma. 

19,350 

, 1904 

May. 1905 

Nov., 

1906 

Apr., 

, 1910 

Aki. 

19,800 

—, 1905 

Mar., 1906 

Apr., 

1907 

Apr., 

, 1911 

Kawachi. 

20,800 

, 1908 

Apr., 1909 

Oct., 

1910 

Apr., 

, 1912 


Compiled by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Nary Department, Washington , 

D. C., October, W15 

AIR CRAFT 

Note. —The following table, correct to April 7. 1913, is reprinted. All publi¬ 
cations on this subject have, due to the European War, been so deleted by both 
the authors and by the official censors that a comparative table would neces¬ 
sarily be so qualified by footnotes, estimates, etc., as to make the table mis¬ 
leading. The following publications are suggested as being of interest: “All 
the World’s Aircraft,” Fred T. Jane; “Taschenbucli der Luftflotten,” Rasch 
and Hormel; “Volamekum-Handbuch fur Luftfahrer,” Bojkow. 

























38 








Military 

aeroplanes 






Mili¬ 
tary 
d irigi- 
bles 

Private 
dirigi¬ 
bles 
(esti¬ 
mated ) 

(includes 
monoplones, 
biplanes, 
hydro¬ 
aeroplanes ) 

Private 
aero¬ 
planes 
(esti¬ 
mated ) 

Aviation 

fields 

Pilots 
( military 
and civil¬ 
ian) 

Manu¬ 

fact¬ 

urers 




Army Navy 





Austria: 






60 

5 

On hand. 

. 5 

2 

40 6 

35 

3 

Ordered . 

O 

. O 

.... 

.... .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

England: 







21 

On hand. 

o 

. t) 

3 

101 40 

154 

31 

382 

Ordered . 

4 

.... 

47 20 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

France: 







20 

On hand. 

. 13 

5 

450 

1,000 

39 

1,200 

Ordered . 

7 

.. .'. 

.... .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

Germany : 








On hand. 

. 17 

10 

152 

200 

36 

320 

15 

Ordered . 

. 5 

• • . . 

• • • . .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

Italy: 








On hand. 

S 

0 

100 

100 

14 

200 

.... 

Ordered . 

2 

.... 

30 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

Japan: 








On hand. 

2 

0 

20 

5 

O 

O 

20 

.... 

Ordered . 

1 

• • • • 

• ••• •••• 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

Russia: 








On hand. 

9 

0 

250 

150 

8 

ns 

.... 

Ordered . 

. 10 

, . . , 

0 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

United States 

: 







On hand . 

• • • 

0 

20 5 

1.000 

13 

320 

6 

Ordered . 

• • . 

.... 

3 1 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 


Extract from the 1915 Report of the Secretary of the Navy 

On the 1st of July, 1914, there were 7 Navy air pilots fully qualified as 
aviators, 2 student aviators, and 31 enlisted men trained as aeronautic 
mechanicians. Since then officers and men have been regularly detailed for 
aeronautical training, a class of 10 officers and 20 men being assigned to this 
duty every three months. There are in the service now IS qualified aviators 
who have been appointed Navy air pilots, one of whom has qualified for free 
ballooning as well as for aeroplanes; 16 student aviators, one of whom has 
qualified in free ballooning and is training for a dirigible pilot; and 121 
aeronautic mechanicians. 

There were on hand on July 1, 1914, 9 aeroplanes and 21 aeronautic motors. 
Of course, the aeroplanes ordered abroad could not be delivered, and three 
ordered in this country likewise had not been delivered. Nine aeroplanes and 
seven motors were delivered up to June 30 of this year. In order to maintain 
the necessary school aeroplanes economically and provide the required number 
continuously so as to avoid interruptions in the training work, a supply of 
spare parts of aeroplanes and their machinery is kept on hand for repair and 
rebuilding purposes. Thus, in addition to constant repairs to aeroplanes, 12 
complete new ones were built up from spare parts, and the total number that 
have been utilized is 28, although there are only 15 aeroplanes now on hand. 

One dirigible, three aeroplanes, and four motors ordered during the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1915, have not yet been delivered. Since then the special 
appropriation made by the Sixty-third Congress has been available, and there 
have been ordered 20 aeroplanes, 73 aeronautic motors, 1 free balloon, 1 float¬ 
ing dirigible shed, 1 hydrogen plant for dirigibles, 1 set aeroplane hangars, 
and 1 aeroplane wrecking derrick. This represents an obligation of funds 
amounting to $771,800. It is closely estimated that funds amounting to $130,- 
000 will be required for repairs and actual operating expenses of the air craft 
on hand and to be delivered during this fiscal year. Thus there is a balance 
of $98,200 available for contingencies and for the purchase of air craft and 
machinery. There are now in the service 15 aeroplanes and 15 aeronautic 






39 


motors. Ky the first of the next year at least 15 new aeroplanes and a num¬ 
ber of new motors will be delivered and S more aviators should be qualified. 

GROWTH OF THE NAVAL MILITIA 

Experience has justified the establishment of the Division of Naval Militia 
Affairs, organized last year after the Sixty-third Congress had, in February. 
lt>14. passed a Naval Militia act. This carried into effect Jefferson’s plan “to . 
erect our seafaring men into a Naval Militia.” The establishment of seven new 
divisions in States now having Naval Militia organizations has been welcomed. 
The suggestion was made to the governors of all States having seacoast or 
frontage on deep-water lakes and rivers, now having no Naval Militia organiza¬ 
tions, of the desirability of establishing Naval Militia organizations in their 
States. Texas and Hawaii have responded to the appeal, while the formation 
of Naval Militia organizations in Delaware and Alabama is now under con¬ 
sideration. 

This arm of the service increased during the year from 59(5 officers to GOO 
officers, and from 7,032 enlisted men to 7,706 enlisted men, a growth of 10 
officers and 074 enlisted men. This is gratifying progress for the first entire 
year during which the Naval Militia has operated under the provisions of the 
Naval Militia act. Too great praise cannot be rendered to the men who have 
so heartily and with such patriotic spirit given themselves to this service, an 
entirely unselfish service, but one invaluable to the country since it would 
form the nucleus of the enlargement of the Navy in case of war. 

An authorization for new ships should l>e followed by a provision for prop¬ 
erly manning them by the time they are completed and ready for active serv¬ 
ice. taking in consideration, of course, the old ships which in the meantime 
will become obsolete for war purposes. I have recommended an increase of 
7,500 men and 2,500 apprentice seamen and 1,500 marines. This increase is 
sufficient to care for the ships to be completed in 1917 and have a number in 
training for those to be completed in the early part of 1918. If Congress 
grants this increase, which I earnestly recommend as essential to the proper 
manning of the ships building and to be authorized, the total number of men 
enlisted in the Navy as seamen and apprentices will be 62,991 and in the 
Marine Corps 11,479, making a total of 74,460. To this number should be added 
4.121 officers and the 907 midshipmen at Annapolis, who are in training for 
commissions. This would make a total of 79,488. While not strictly a part 
of the NaVy, there are 225 officers and 1,100 men employed in the naval auxili¬ 
ary service, who are engaged regularly upon the 18 vessels belonging to this 
service. They are utilized in supplying the ships of the Navy with coal, oil, 
and other supplies, and provide a very necessary adjunct to the Navy. If 
these 225 officers of auxiliaries and 1,100 men should be added to the number 
engaged ashore and afloat, the total number of officers and men in regular 
and auxiliary service aggregates 80,813. But the above figures, embracing 
only the officers and the men who are actually on the rolls of the Navy, or 
engaged in sendee afloat in regular auxiliaries, do not begin to tell the full 
story of the total number of men whose lives are devoted to the naval sendee. 
In the 16 navy yards and naval establishments about 25.000 men are employed. 
Many of these men are skilled machinists and electricians, who are so trained 
that upon emergency they could be utilized to excellent advantage. In addi¬ 
tion the Navy is rich in skill in every department in which men are engaged 
ashore in making and keeping ready the fleet. Outside the navy yards and like 
naval establishments there are about 3,500 civilians who may be said to be 
enlisted in the service of the Navy, for the draftsman, the scientist, the en¬ 
gineer. the clerk, and men and women engaged in the various activities ashore 
are truly enlisted for the strengthening of the Navy and its steady improve¬ 
ment. This gives a total of more than 109,300 who are on the Navy rolls, and 
it. would be difficult to name a trade or profession not engaged in the making 
and perfecting of all that goes into the American Navy. To this number should 
also be added the thousands in the Naval Militia, the Naval Reserve, the Coast 
Guard, and allied service which would l>e important auxiliary factors in time 
of war. 


40 


INVESTMENTS IN NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS 

Date of 


Stations 

NAVY YARDS (AT HOME) 


Portsmouth . 

Boston. 

New York... 
Philadelphia 
Washington. 
Norfolk . . . 
Mare Island 
Puget Sound. 
Charleston.. 
Pensacola . . 
New Orleans 


NAVY YARDS (ABROAD) 

Hawaii. 

Cavite. 

Olongapo . 

NAVAL STATIONS (AT HOME) 

Port Royal. 

Key West. 

NAVAL STATIONS (ABROAD) 

Guantanamo. 

San Juan. 

Guam. 

Tutuila. 

TRAINING STATIONS 

Newport. 

San Francisco. 

Great Lakes. 

COALING STATIONS 

Frenchmans Bay. 

Melville. 

Pichilinque, Mex. 

San Diego . 

Tiburon. 

MISCELLANEOUS 

Sitka. 

New London. 

Yokohama, Japan. 

Annapolis (Naval Academy). 

Naval Proving Ground ... .. 

Las Animas (naval hospital). 

Culebra (naval base). 

Torpedo Station, Newport. 

Total. 


establish¬ 

ment 

1800 

1S00 

1801 

1868 

1800 

1800 

1854 

1891 

1901 

1828 

1849 


1899 

1898 

1901 


1883 

1854 


1903 
1898 
1 898 
1900 


1869 

1S9S 

1905 


1899 

1900 
1900 
1904 
1904 


1900 

1868 

1900 

1845 

1890 

1907 

1904 

1869 


Expendi¬ 

tures 

$11,212,984 

16,164,453 

30,765,715 

13.035,017 

14,069,292 

19,200,289 

20.149,780 

9,668,260 

4,632,610 

7,727,314 

2.729.18S 


7,984,60S 
3,795,853 
2.133,831 


1.242,521 

2,791,341 

1,982,073: 
85,77a 
458,464 
565,SOS 


2,018,819' 

397,975 

3,646,036 


541,167 

1.236.484 

54,481 

227.165 

1.148,962 


145.481 

433,356 

90,168 

12,173,092 

1,406,696 

408,799 

23,144 

1.712,925 

$196,059,926 


Extracts from Article by Burton J. Hendrick 

We have seven first-class navy yards, so called, as bases for these vessels 
and for the smaller units—five on the Atlantic Coast and two on the Pacific. 


Of these seven navy yards only two can receive our fighting ships at all 
times and in all conditions. 


* 








































41 


We have only tico yards, Portsmouth, A. H., on the Atlantic and Puget Sound 
on the Pacific, that have a channel, freely open at all times, containing this 
indispensable JfO feet. Only two, that is, fulfill the minimum requirements of 
naval warfare as determined by our own naval experts. And of these two, 
Portsmouth, for other reasons, has little value as a naval base. 

* * * $ * * * $ 

In June, 1913, a board, headed by Rear Admiral John R. Edwards, inspected 
the Atlantic yards. N It made this report on the one at Boston: “The approach 
to the yard from seaward is by a navigable channel, the controlling depth of 
which at the present time is not less than 32 feet, and will soon be 35 feet at 
mean low water.” Even when the projected improvements are finished, there¬ 
fore, Boston, by 5 feet, will not give the necessary access to our dreadnaughts. 

The greatest of our navy yards, that at New York, is very difficult to ap¬ 
proach. A dreadnaught cannot enter it at all in foggy weather, and on clear 
days ships can make their way to the docks only at high tide. I quote from 
the Edwards report: “The controlling depth of the channel [at New York] is 
ample, but the tidal conditions are such that even in clear weather not more 
than two capital ships can safely come to the yard and be secured alongside 
the piers in one day. This limitation is partly due to the brief duration of 
slack water in the East River, to lack of depth of water abreast of Governors 
Island, but most of all to strong tidal currents and the resulting difficulty of 
berthing vessels during the strength of the tide. During foggy weather, when 
the range which leads clear of Diamond Reef is obscured, no deep-draft 
vessel can be taken to the yard. Improved conditions would enable four 
vessels to be brought to the yard in one day. This, however, can only be ac¬ 
complished at great expense.” 

* ifc ❖ ❖ >|: * 

Philadelphia rejoices continually in its League Island Navy Yard. That 
capital ships can reach it only at high water apparently does not affect this 
complacent attitude. 

* * * * * * * * / 

As to accessibility, the Joint Army and Navy Board reported in 1911: 
“Modern battleships damaged in such a manner as to increase their draft 
and impair maneuvering power would find it difficult to reach this yard.” 
The hearings before the House Naval Committee in 1912 disclosed that the 
channel up the Delaware River at low water had a mean draft of 30 feet 
and that it would cost $2,000,000 a year for five years to increase it to 35 feet. 
And then the channel would lack 5 feet of the depth which, as I have pointed 
out. modern naval operations demand. 

Even Norfolk has a channel of only 35 feet. Its other great advantages as a 
naval base, however, would easily justify the comparatively small expenditure 
needed to make the channel an ideal one. 

Our fighting ships cannot get into the Charleston Navy Yard even at high 
water. Its channel at high tide is only 28 feet deep. In spite of this the 
Government in recent years has spent $1,250,000 building a dry-dock for 
battleships! A battleship, however, cannot reach dock; it is therefore used 
for cleaning and repairing gunboats. Moreover, Charleston, because of the 
constant silting, never can become a real navy yard. 

On the Pacific Coast, as already said, Puget Sound, without any dredging, 
has an ample depth of water. Our other Pacific navy yard, that at Mare 
Island, near Vallejo, cannot admit a first-class battleship. In 1907 our fleet 
of sixteen battleships, making its famous voyage around the world, could not 
dock at Mare Island, but had to go en masse to Puget Sound. Californians, 
however, insist that the Missouri, finding herself badly crippled and needing 
immediate relief, did manage, at high tide, to sneak up to the Mare Island 
dock. According to unfriendly critics, she spent some time on the mud flats 
of San Pablo in the process. The point is not important, as this single achieve¬ 
ment by no means justifies the Mare Island yard. 


Extract from article in “World's Work.” March, 1916 , by Burton J. Hendrick 
Secretary Meyer, of President Taft’s Cabinet, closed two useless stations at 



42 


Pensacola and New Orleans. Secretary Daniels promptly reopened them. 
Why? A document which has never been published sheds some light on this 
question. In May, 1913, Secretary Daniels designated Hear Admiral Edwards, 
then the commandant of the Charleston Navy Yard—a naval officer not widely 
known, even in navy circles—to investigate the navy yards. Rear Admiral 
Edwards devoted much time to the closed yard at New Orleans. Although 
this officer wore an admiral’s star, he virtually recommended that this yard 
he opened on political grounds, His language, roundabout as it is, means 
this and nothing else. 


INCREASE OF NAVY SINCE 1903 

Statement of the totals of the appropriations carried by the naval acts from 
1903 to 1915, showing separately the amounts for “Increase of the Navy,” 
and shotving the number and types of vessels authorized by those acts 


Year Appropriation 

1904_ $97,505,140.94 


1905 - 100,336,679.94 

1906 _ 102.091,670.27 

1907 _ 9S,958,507.50 

1908 _ 122.663, SS5.47 

1909 - 136,935,199.05 

1910 - 131,350,854.38 

1911 _ 126.478,338.24 


1912.... 123.225,007.76 


Amount for in¬ 
crease Navy 
$32,176,860.00 


42.255.S33.00 

33,475,829.00 

23,713,915.00 


30.307.962.00 


38,819,595.00 


33.770.346.00 


26.005.547.67 


20,569,373.48 


Building program 

1 first-class battleship 

2 armored cruisers 

3 scout cruisers 
2 colliers 

2 tugs 

4 submarines 

2 first-class battleships 

1 first-class battleship 

3 torpedo-boat destroyers 
8 submarines 

1 first-class battleship 

2 torpedo-boat destroyers 

2 first-class battleships 

5 colliers 

10 torpedo-boat destroyers 
8 submarines 

2 first-class battleships 

1 collier 

8 destroyers (3 subsurface) 

4 submarines 

2 first-class battleships 
2 colliers 

6 torpedo-boat destroyers 
4 submarines 

2 first-class battleships 
2 colliers 
1 river gunboat 

1 gunboat 

2 tugs 

4 submarines 

1 submarine tender 

5 torpedo-boat destroyers 

1 battleship, first line 

2 fuel ships 

6 destroyers 

1 destroyer tender 
8 submarines 
1 submarine tender 




43 


Year 

Appropriation 

Amount for in¬ 
crease Navy 


Building program 

1913.... 

140,800,643.52 

35,325.695.00 

1 

battleship 




1 

transport 




1 

supply ship 




6 

destroyers 




4 

submarines 

1914.... 

144,808,716.61 

41,091,734.00 

3 

6 

battleships 

destroyers 




8 

(or more) submarines 

1915.... 

149,661,S04.S8 

1 46,S53,S01.00 

2 

6 

battleships 

destroyers 




o 

seagoing submarines 




16 coast-defense submarines 




1 

oil fuel ship 


Extract from the 1915 Report of the Secretary of the Navy 

NAVAL CONSULTING BOARD OF CIVILIAN SCIENTISTS 

1 homas A. Edison, chairman, and M. R. Hutchison assistant to the 
chairman. 

American Chemical Society—W. R. Whitney and L. H. Baekeland. 

American Institute of Electrical Engineers—Frank J. Sprague and B. G. 
Lam me. 

American Mathematical Society—Robert S. Woodward and Arthur G. 
Webster. 

American Society of Civil Engineers-—Andrew M. Hunt and Alfred Craven. 

American Aeronautical Society—Matthew B. Sellers and Hudson Maxim. 

Inventor’s Guild—Peter C. Hewitt and Thomas Robins. 

American Society of Automobile Engineers—Howard E. Coffin and Andrew 

L. Riker. 

American Institute of Mining Engineers (Metals)—William L. Saunders and 
Benjamin B. Thayer. 

American Electro-Chemical Society—Joseph W. Richards and Lawrence 
Addicks. * 

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers—William Le Roy Emmet 
and Spencer Miller. 

American Society of Aeronautic Engineers—Henry A. Wise Wood and 
Elmer A. Sperry. 

They organized by the election of these officers: Chairman, Thomas A. 
Edison; first vice-chairman, Peter Cooper Hewitt; second vice-chairman, 
William L. Saunders; secretary, Thomas Robins; assistant to the chairman, 

M. R. Hutchison. 

# Hs * H* * H* ❖ 

As the result of long deliberation, it recommended the establishment of a 
research and experimental laboratory, whose investment for grounds, build¬ 
ings. and equipment should total approximately $5,000,000, and which should 
be located on tidewater of sufficient depth to permit a dreadnaught to come to 
the dock. The board thought it should be near, but not in, a large city, so that 
labor and supplies might be easily obtained. It further suggested that a naval 
officer especially fitted should he in charge, with naval officers scientifically 
trained and with broad experience serving under him, while under these naval 
heads should come staffs of civilian experimenters, chemists, physicists, etc. 

IT IS FROFITABLE TO MAKE POWDER 

Experience has demonstrated that it has been sound public policy for the 
Government to be able to manufacture smokeless powder. A few years ago 
the Government paid 80 cents a pound to the private company from which it 
purchased its supply. In 1900 at Indian Head the Navy began to manufacture 
smokeless powder, but not nearly enough for its needs in time of peace. Later. 

1 Includes roappropriation of $800,000. 



44 


after congressional investigation of the cost of manufacturing smokeless pow¬ 
der, the price was fixed by Congress at 53 cents. The price paid to private 
manufacturers has varied as follows: In 1897, $1 per pound; in 1898, 85 cents 
per pound; 1899-1900, 80 cents; 1901, 75 cents; 1902-1906, 70 cents; 1907-1908. 
69 cents; 190S, 63 cents; 1910-1913, 60 cents; 1914-1915, 53 cents. 

At the first session of the Sixty-third Congress I recommended an appro¬ 
priation to add to the plant at the naval proving ground for manufacturing 
smokeless powder, the appropriation to be large enough to enable the Navy 
to manufacture all the powder for ordinary needs. This year the product was 
nearly 4,000,000 pounds. Congress made the appropriation, and the Navy will 
soon be manufacturing in its own plant at Indian Head all the powder it needs 
at a cost of $0.24910 per pound instead of the 53 cents it had been paying to 
private manufacturers. The cost of manufacturing in our own plant has stead¬ 
ily increased. In 1913 the cost was $0.29929; in 1914 it was $0.27621; in 1915 
it is $0.249120. Of course these figures represent the actual cost of the mate¬ 
rials and labor, not counting overhead charges and interest on the investment 
required. The Bureau of Ordnance estimates that the overhead charges (in¬ 
cluding pay and allowance of officers, pensions, leave, etc.) aggregate $0.072243. 
If these items are added, the cost would he $0.321363, and if to this should be 
added the interest on the plant investment, $0.019893, the total would be 
0.341256 per pound. Of course the abnormal rise in the cost of all raw mate¬ 
rials will increase the cost. At the Government plant 3,984,978 pounds were 
manufactured in 1915. It is expected the product will he 5,000,000 pounds 
in 1916 and 6,000,000 pounds for 1917. 

If the 3,984.978 pounds manufactured had been purchased, it would have cost, 
at 53 cents per pound, $2,112,038.34. Inasmuch as the actual cost to the Navy 
was 25 cents, the cost was $996,244.50, or $1,115,793.S4 less than the price 
charged by the private manufacturers. This saving is for one year only. If 
we had been manufacturing powder in our own plant for 10 years, the sav¬ 
ing would have gone into the millions. It is profitable for the Navy to make 
its own powder. 

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE AN ARMOR-PLATE PLANT 

While the Navy Department has been able to supply other important needs 
in markets affording some competition, in the purchase of armor plate it has 
been restricted to making these large purchases practically without competi¬ 
tion. The natural result has been that the makers of armor have fixed the 
price. There are only three firms which manufacture armor plate and for 
some years they have practically charged the same price per ton. In my re¬ 
port for 1913, I recounted the fact that when bids were invited for the 
Arizona , all three of these firms made identically the same bid to a cent. They 
justified this sham of bidding by saying that, upon the last award, when the 
newest of the companies underbid the two older ones, the department made an 
award of one-third of the quantity desired to each firm at the lowest figure 
quoted. Thereafter there was no incentive on the part of the new company 
to compete in bidding because when it made a lower price it only received 
one-third of the contract. All the bids made then were rejected, and when the 
manufacturers found the department would not pay their price, a reduction 
of $111,875 was made for the Arizona’s armor over the price of that charged 
for the Pennsylvania bought in 1912. The next year, when bids were opened 
for armor plate for three ships, upon the basis of buying at wholesale, it was 
natural to expect a material reduction in the price, but the three companies 
submitted bids for only a trifle less than the price they received for the 
armor for one ship in the preceding year. All these bids being rejected, upon 
the second opening of bids, the department effected a saving of $738,648. The 
prices quoted this year for battleships No. J(3 and No. 44 are practically the 
same as for the California, Idaho, and Mississippi. 

* * * * * * * * 

It has been demonstrated beyond controversy that the prices charged by the 
armor-plate plants have no reference to competition and little reference to the 
cost of production. 

* * * * * * * * 


45 


\\ lien the recommendation was lirst made for an armor-plate factory, it was 
expected that the committee would secure from other countries much informa¬ 
tion that would throw light upon the actual cost of a plant and its operation. 
With no opportunity to make such comparisons or to see any plants in opera¬ 
tion except the three in our own country, the committee, with this limited 
opportunity to ascertain the world facts, made its report. It estimated that 
if our Government should establish a plant with the capacity of 10,000 tons, 
armor plate could be manufactured at $262.79 per ton, or a factory with 
20,000 tons capacity at $230 per ton. 

The price charged the Government for the last armor plate purchased was 
$425 per ton, and the price in 1913 was $454 on contract let March 3, 1913, and 
$440 per ton on contract let November 17, 1913, and in 1912 (before the 8-hour 
law became effective) $420 per ton. This shows that a very large saving can 
be effected if the Congress makes an appropriation in accordance with my 
recommendation for the erection of an armor-plate plant. 

NO INCENTIVE FOR PRIVATE GAIN IN PREPAREDNESS 

There are two compelling reasons why at both sessions of the Sixty-third 
Congress and in my recommendations to the Sixty-fourtli Congress stress has 
been laid upon the policy that the Government ought to have the plants to 
manufacture its own munitions as well as its ships. 

(IV The principle is sound that there ought to be no incentive to private 
gain in making preparations for national defense. In certain European coun¬ 
tries before the beginning of the present war there were charges in the public 
press that a propaganda for increased armament was financed by manufac¬ 
turers who would be enriched by large orders for the products of their plants. 
The same charge has been made in our own country. Without making inquiry 
as to the evidence upon which such charges have been made, it may be accepted 
that the owners of great plants devoted to the manufacture of war supplies 
will favor that policy which would increase their business and add to their 
profits. There are agitators for a big Navy who would profit by a large con¬ 
struction program. The Government cannot be influenced by those advocating 
any policy for enriching disciples of “philanthropy and five per cent.” These 
few, however, should not be confounded with the many advocates of a larger 
Navy who tire prompted solely by motives of patriotism. 

(2) The only hope of competitive bidding for torpedoes, large guns, ships, 
and like costly war material, lies in the ability of the Government to do its 
own manufacturing and building if private concerns charge prices far above the 
cost to the Government of their manufacture. In the smaller munitions, which 
can be manufactured by companies without immense capital, competition is 
usually free and no thought should be had of Government plants. But in 
armor plate, powder, and certain very expensive shells, torpedoes, and the like, 
experience has shown that the Government must know by experience what 
they can be made for if it would buy at fair prices. It has been too often true 
that the offers have not been on the basis of cost and a fair profit, but upon 
how much the Government would pay when the only alternative was to have 
ships without ammunition or pay exorbitant prices. 


From the President’s Message to Congress, December 7, 1915 

PROGRAM FOR NAVY 

/ 

The program which will be laid before you by the Secretary of the Navy is 
similarly conceived. In involves only a shortening of the time within which 
plans long matured shall be carried out; but it does make definite and explicit 
a program which has heretofore been only implicit, held in the minds of the 
committees on naval affairs and disclosed in the debates of the two houses 
but nowhere formulated or formally adopted. It seems to me very clear that 
it will be to the advantage of the country for the Congress to adopt a com¬ 
prehensive plan for putting the navy upon a final footing of strength and 
efficiency and to press that plan to completion within the next five years. We 
have always looked to the navy of the country as our first and chief line of 
defense; we have always seen it to be our manifest course of prudence to be 



46 


strong on the seas. Year by year we have been creating a navy which now 
ranks very high indeed among the navies of the maritime nations. We should 
now definitely determine how we shall complete what we have begun, and how 
soon. 

The program to be laid before you contemplates the construction within five 
years of 10 battleships, 6 battle cruisers, 10 scout cruisers, 50 destroyers, 15 
fleet submarines, 85 coast submarines, 4 gunboats, 1 hospital ship, 2 ammuni¬ 
tion ships, 2 fuel oil ships, and 1 repair ship. It is proposed that of this num¬ 
ber we shall the first year provide for the construction of 2 battleships, 2 
battle cruisers, 3 scout cruisers, 15 destroyers, 5 fleet submarines, 25 coast 
submarines, 2 gunboats, and 1 hospital ship; the second year, 2 battleships, 1 
scout cruiser, 10 destroyers, 4 fleet submarines, 15 coast submarines, 1 gun¬ 
boat and 1 fuel oil ship; the third year, 2 battleships, 1 battle cruiser, 2 scout 
cruisers, 5 destroyers, 2 fleet submarines and 15 coast submarines; the fourth 
year, 2 battleships, 2 battle cruisers, 2 scout cruisers, 10 destroyers, 2 fleet sub¬ 
marines, 15 coast submarines, 1 ammunition ship and 1 fuel oil ship, and the 
fifth year, 2 battleships, 1 battle cruiser, 2 scout cruisers, 10 destroyers, 2 fleet 
submarines, 15 coast submarines, 1 gunboat, 1 ammunition ship and 1 repair 
ship. 

INCREASE IN PERSONNEL 

The Secretary of the Navy is asking also for the immediate addition to the 
personnel of the navy of 7,500 sailors, 2,500 apprentice seamen and 1,500 
marines. This increase would be sufficient to care for the ships which are 
to be completed within the fiscal year 1917 and also for the number of men 
which must be put in training to man the ships which will be completed early 
in 1918. It is also necessary that the number of midshipmen at the Naval 
Academy at Annapolis should be increased by at least 300 in order that the 
force of officers should be more rapidly added to; and authority is asked to 
appoint, for engineering duties only, approved graduates of engineering col¬ 
leges, and for service in the aviation corps a certain number of men taken from 
civil life. 

If this full program should be carried out we should have built or building in 
1921, according to the estimates of survival and standards of classification fol¬ 
lowed by the general board of the department, an effective navy consisting of 
27 battleships of the first line, 6 battle cruisers, 25 battleships of the second 
line, 10 armored cruisers, 13 scout cruisers, 5 first-class cruisers, 3 second- 
class cruisers, 10 third-class cruisers, 10S destroyers, 18 fleet submarines, 157 
coast submarines, 6 monitors, 20 gunboats, 4 supply ships, 35 fuel ships, 4 trans¬ 
ports, 3 tenders to torpedo vessels, 8 vessels of special' types and 2 ammuni¬ 
tion ships. This would be a navy fitted to our needs and worthy of our 
traditions. 


Extract from the 1915 Report of the Secretary of the Navy 

The following is the program recommended, and I hope Congress will in¬ 
dorse it by so large a vote of its members as to make certain its continuance 
by Congresses to come: 


47 


Dreadnaughts .. 
Battle cruisers. 
Scout cruisers.. 
Destroyers .... 
Fleet submarines 
Coast submarines 

Gunboats. 

Hospital ships. . 
Ammunition 

chips . 

Fuel-oil ships. . 
Repair ship. . . . 


1917 

(2) $15,560,000 
(2)11,158,000 

(3)6,900,000 
(15)10,500,000 
(5)4,425,000 
(25)5,750,000 
(2)760,000 
(1)1,250,000 


700,000 


1918 

(2) $26,580,000 
11,921,000 
(1)6,350,000 
(10)16,900,000 

(4)5,577,500 
(15)13,950,000 
(1)1,140,000 
1,200,000 


(1)655,250 


1919 

(2) $37,600,000 

(1) 17,500,000 

(2) 10,000,000 

(5)10,000,000 

(2)5,437,500 

(15)9,750,000 

380,000 


1920 

(2) $37,600,000 
(2)17,118,500 
(2)8,650,000 
(10)10,300,000 
(2)4,215,000 
(15)9,750,000 


(1)799,587 

(1)700,000 


1921 

(2) $37,600,000 

(1) 23,460,500 

(2) 10,000,000 

(10)13,600,000 

(2)3,400,000 

(15)9,750,000 

(1)380,000 


(1)1,766,000 

655,250 

(1)1.175,000 


Total . 57,003,000 84,273,750 90,767,500 89,133,087 101,786,750 

For completion 
of ships previ¬ 
ously author¬ 
ized . 28,369,127 20,149,000 . . . 


Total . 85,372,127 104,422,750 . . . 

Aviation . 2,000,000 1,000,000 . . . 

Reserve of muni- 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 

tions . 8,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 


Grand total.. 95,372,127 110,422,750 96,767,500 95,133,087 104.786,750 


Grand total for five years, $502,482,214. 

If this program is carried out, accepting the General Board estimates of 
survival for present vessels, the Navy would be composed of the following 
vessels, built or building, in 1921: 


Battleships, first line. 

Battle cruisers. 

Battleships, second line... 

Armored cruisers. 

Scout cruisers. 

Cruisers, first class. 

Cruisers, second class. 

Cruisers, third class. 

Destroyers. 

Fleet submarines. 

Coast submarines . .. 

Monitors. 

Gunboats. 

Supply ships. 

Fuel ships. 

Transports. 

Tenders to torpedo vessels 

Special types. 

Ammunition ships . .. 


27 

6 

25 

10 

13 

5 

3 
10 

108 

18 

157 

6 
20 

4 

15 

4 

3 

8 

2 





















































48 


SUMMARY OF BUILDING PROGRAMS FOR 1917 


Battle cruisers. 

Dreadnaughts. 

Scouts. 

Coast submarines. 

Fleet submarines. 

Destroyers. 

Gunboats. 

River gunboats. 

Destroyer tenders. 

Fleet submarine tenders 

Fuel oil ships. 

Supply ships. 

Transports. 

Hospital ships. 

Repair ships. 

Ammunition ships . ... 


Navy 

Board’s 

July 

Report 


Navy 
Board’s 
(Ictober 
Report 


Secretary 

Daniel’s 

Program 


4 

4 

o 

4 

O 

O 

q 

6 

4 

o 

O 

30 

20 

25 

7 

28 

o 

5 

10 

15 

6 

0 

9 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

9 

0 

0 

4 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

< 1 

0 


The three reports call respectively for expenditures for aviation of 
$5,000,000, $3,000,000, and $2,000,000. For reserve munitions, the Board asks 
$11,000,000 and the Secretary $8,000,000. The total cost for the year is placed 
at $265,521,000 in the Board’s July report, $199,205,000 in the Board’s October 
report, and $67,003,000 in Secretary Daniel’s report. 


PROGRAMS FOR SPENDING “$500,000,000 IN FIVE YEARS” 


Navy Secretary 

Board Daniels 

1917 $199,205,000 $95,372,127 

1918 . 71,700,000 110,422,750 

1919 . 84,200,000 96,767,500 

1920..*.. 128,911,000 95,133,087 

1921 . 15,860,000 104.786,750 


Total. 499,876.000 502,582,214 


Note. —Secretary Daniel’s figures include $48,518,147 to be spent on already 
authorized construction, 1917 and 1918 

THE CONGRESSMAN'S CHOICE OF NAVAL PROGRAMS 

Congress may adopt either of the two five-year programs, or it may make 
out the Naval Appropriation Bill on the basis of any one of the three 1917 
proposals, with, perhaps, modifications of its own. The Navy Board's July 
report, if accepted and kept in force as a policy, would mean an expenditure 
for new construction alone of $1,600,000,000 in six years. 

In the five-year program for “increase of the Navy” is embraced a recom¬ 
mendation for $S,000,000 for the next year for reserve in munitions and a large 
sum each year for this purpose. 


Extract from, the 1915 report of the Secretary of the Navy 

AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT TO END COMPETITION IN BIG NAVAL PROGRAMS 

While it is absolutely necessary, under present conditions, for this country * 
to increase the strength of its Navy, and while until world-wide conditions 
change I cannot do otherwise than advocate a policy of increasing our naval 
strength, I hope the day will soon come when the suggestion by the naval head 
of a great nation, made in 1913, for a reduction in naval construction will 
be agreed to by the whole world. In my 1913 report I discussed the proposi¬ 
tion and said : “No single nation with large interests can safely take a vacation 


« 



























49 


in the building of battleships. That mueh-to-be-desired vacation must come 
through concerted action,” and I ventured to recommend that this country 
take the initiative for a conference of the war and navy officials and other 
representatives of all nations “to discuss whether they cannot agree upon a 
plan for lessening the cost of preparation for war.” Before that suggestion 
could be considered, war broke upon the world. Even though war was waging 
when my 1914 report was written, I renewed the suggestion, expressing the 
belief that “the present war, involving most of the big-navy countries in Europe, 
does not render such an international agreement impossible; on the contrary, 
there are reasons to hope that the horrors and cost of this war will hasten 
the coming of the day for a conference of the powers to consider the safe steps 
to be taken to reduce armament and dreadnauglits and submarines.” 

The hope I then entertained for an international understanding to end com¬ 
petition in costly building programs I still cherish. While conditions to-day 
are such that no suggestion looking to an international agreement could prob¬ 
ably be made with prospect of present success, I entertain the sincere desire 
that when peace is restored the suggestions made in my reports may be con¬ 
sidered and approved by the great navy-building nations of the world. 


PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEES 



64TH CONGRESS 


Democrats 


Republicans 


.Tames Hay, Va., Chairman. 
S. H. Dent, Jr., Ala. 

W. J. Fields, Ivy. 

K. D. McKellar, Tenn. 

P. E. Quin, Miss. 

Win. Gordon, Ohio. 

A. B. Littlepage, W. Va. 

A. C. Shallenberg, Neb. 

M. F. Farley, New York. 

C. P.’ Caldwell, New York. 
J. W. Wise, Ga. 

Richard Olney, 2nd. Mass. 
S. .T. Nicholas, S. C. 


Julius Kahn, California. 

D. R. Anthony, Jr., Kansas. 

J. C. McKenzie, Ill. 

F. L. Greene, Vt. 

.T. M. Morin. Pa. 

J. Q. Tilson, Conn. 

T. S. Crago, Pa. 

H. E. Hull. Iowa. 

James Wiekersham, Delegate, Alaska. 


SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS 


Democrats 


Rep ublicans 


G. E. Chamberlain, Ore., Chairman.II. A. du Pont, Del. 


G. M. Hitchcock. Neb. 
Luke Lea, Tenn. 

D. L T . Fletcher. Fla. 

H. L. Myers, Mont. 

C. S. Thomas, Colo. 

.T. P. Clarke, Ark. 
Morris Sheppard, Tex. 
.T. C. W. Beckham. Ky. 
R. F. Broussard, La. 


F. E. Warren, Wyo. 


T. P>. Catron. N. Mexico. 


.T. II. Brady, Idaho. 
Nathan Goff, W. Va. 
L. B. Colt, R. I. 


.T. W. Weeks, Mass. 



Democrats 

Blair Lee. Md.. Chairman. 
C. F. Johnson, Me. 

F. INI. Simmons, N. C. 


Republicans 


J. W. Smith, Md. 
Harry Lane, Ore. 


II. A. du Pont, Del. 

T. B. Catron, N. Mex 
J. W. Weeks, Mass. 
E. C. Burleigh, Me. 
W. G. Harding, Ohio. 


j. D. Phelan, California. 



50 


COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

64TH CONGRESS 


Democrats 

Lemuel P. Padgett, Tenn., Chairman. 
Joshua F. C. Talbott, Md. 

Albert Estopinal, La. 

Daniel J. Riordan, N. Y. 

Samuel J. Tribble, Ga. 

Walter L. Hensley, Mo. 

Frank Buchanan, Ill. 

Finly H. Gray, Ind. 

Oscar Callaway, Tex. 

John R. Connelly, Kans. 

Archibald C. Hart, N. J. 

Wm. B. Oliver, Ala. 

Michael Liebel, Jr., Pa. 


Republicans 
Thomas S. Butler, Pa. 

Ernest W. Roberts, Mass. 
Wm. J. Browning, N. J. 

John R. Farr, Pa. 

Fred A. Britten, Ill. 

Patrick H. Kelley, Mich. 

Wm. D. Stephens, California. 
Sydney E. Mudd, Md. 


SENATE COMMITTEE ON 
Democrats 

Benjamin R. Tillman. S. C., Chairman. 
Claude A. Swanson, Va. 

Nathan P. Bryan, Fla. 

Charles F. Johnson, Me. 

Wm. E. Chilton, W. Va. 


James A. O’Gorman, N. Y. 
John Walter Smith, Md. 

J. Hamilton Lewis, Ill. 
James D. Phelan, California. 


NAVAL AFFAIRS 
Republicans 
Key Pittman, Nevada. 

Boies Penrose, Pa. 

Moses E. Clapp, Minn. 
Henry Cabot Lodge, Mass. 
Wm. Alden Smith, Mich. 
Carroll S. Page, Vt. 

Miles Poindexter, Wash. 
Albert B. Fall, New Mexico. 


NEWSPAPER SUMMARIES OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE 
ON NAVAL AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Captain Sims, commanding the battleship Nevada, urged Naval Committee 
to provide for the immediate construction of eight or nine battle cruisers. 


The House Naval Committee virtually closed its examination of Rear Ad¬ 
miral Blue, who declared that the American Navy now is prepared and ready 
to meet any enemy it might be called upon to encounter in the Pacific. 


The Naval Committee was informed by Admiral Cameron McR. Winslow 
that the entire Pacific fleet, which he commands, might be an easy victim for a 
single good enemy battleship. 


Three dreadnaughts and four battle cruisers added to the American fleet, 
built and authorized, would make it the equal in fighting strength of the pres¬ 
ent German fleet, Admiral Fletcher, commander of the Atlantic fleet, declared 
before the House Naval Committee. While Germany has seven battle cruisers 
and the United States none, the admiral said, the 35-knot craft proposed by 
the Navy Department would be so much superior to anything now .afloat that 
four of them, possibly three, would more than offset the seven German boats. 

With the present fleet of 42 battleships of all types, three additional dread¬ 
noughts and seven battle cruisers, Admiral Fletcher thought “we could rea¬ 
sonably expect to make a good defense, although not an absolute one,” of 
both coasts against any combination of two enemy powers that did not include 
Great Britain. 

Rear Admiral Bradley A. Fiske, former aide for operations, told the House 
Naval Committee that in fighting strength the United States Navy was only 
about half as strong as Germany’s. He discussed the subject reluctantly, but 
in response to questions expressed the opinion that all things considered, 2 
to 1 “would not be very far away” in an estimate of the comparative strength 
of the German and American fleets. 





51 


The admiral declared that the Navy was not getting value received for money 
expended, and was only about 75 per cent of what it should be under a better- 
system of administration. 

The Naval Committee struggled again with the problem of submarines, Rear 
Admiral Grant, chief of the flotillas, outlined further his plans to establish 
submarine shore bases along the coasts, and repeated his statement that 183 
underwater boats, with 30 reserve craft, were needed. He said American 
submarine builders, public and private, could produce 48 of the 800-ton boats 
he recommends within twelve months. 

Representative Callaway questioned the admiral as to the relative strength 
of the American Navy among those of the world. Admiral Grant said he be¬ 
lieved the German as well as the British Navy was considerably stronger. 

ONE POWER COULD LAND 

“There is to-day,” he said, “one power that has enough Navy to land on- 
our coast, even if we had the 183 submarines and our present fleet.” 

“And only one,” interjected Representative Kelley. 

“I think only one,” agreed Admiral Grant. 

“And you think it would not be necessary to build a navy as large as that 
power?” asked Representative Callaway. 

The admiral assented, and to Representative Callaway’s demand to know 
why he thought so, said : 

“The relations between the countries is pretty close. My personal impres¬ 
sion is there will never be a war between this country and the power I have- 
in mind.” 

Admiral Grant declared any enemy fleet must be considerably larger than 
a defending fleet to force a landing. 

Every maneuver or board game the department had worked out, Admiral 
Grant said, had shown the need of battle cruisers and scouting craft. It was; 
for that reason, he added, that while he believed the dreadnought to be the 
basic fighting unit of any fleet, attention should be concentrated on building; 
battle cruisers and scout ships in addition to submarines before more battle¬ 
ships were authorized. 


The United States Navy’s whole system of government and operation, from 
education of officers to questions of ship and gun construction, was sharply- 
criticized before the House Naval Committee by Admiral Cameron McR. 
Winslow, commander in chief of the Pacific fleet. Without radical changes,, 
the admiral declared, a fully efficient fighting force, comparable to the British 
Navy, could not be produced in 50 years. 


New construction for the Navy should be limited this year only by the 
country’s facilities to build, Rear Admiral Austin M. Knight, president of the- 
Navy War college, told the House Naval Committee. If an adequate fleet is 
to be made ready by 1925, he declared, an immediate inquiry should be made 
to determine the extent of these facilities and to plan for even greater build¬ 
ing programs each year until the United States Navy is the strongest force- 
afloat. 

“It is a big program, of course,” said Admiral Knight, “but we have a big- 
country to defend.” 

Only the limits of construction facilities, the admiral explained, had caused 
the general board to fix 1925 as the date the American fleet should equal any 
afloat. 


Rear Admiral ^Strauss, chief of ordnance of the Navy, was forced to admit 
before the Naval Affairs Committee of the House that his estimates for- 
ordnance had been reduced by Secretary Daniels nearly $12,000,000. 

Representative Britten of Chicago, questioning the ordnance chief closely,, 
brought out through his answer that the original estimates made to the Sec¬ 
retary of the Navy had been reduced by Mr. Daniels without even consulting; 
Admiral Strauss or giving him a hearing. 





52 


ANTIAIRCRAFT GUNS CUT OUT 

The most important item in the reduction, although not the largest, was 
$1,274,000 for antiaircraft guns, which have played such an important rOle in 
the European conflict. The other reductions were $20,('00 for the gun factory 
here; $169,900 for improved machinery at the Washington Navy Yard; $10,000 
for buildings necessary in the construction of ordnance; $2,485,000 for torpe¬ 
does and appliances, and $7,860,475 for ammunition for ships—a total of 
$11,819,975. 

Naval Constructor Emory S. Land testified that, including boats nearly com¬ 
pleted and five at Panama, fourteen submarines could be made available for 
war service immediately, or within 30 days. Of the eighteen submarines of 
the Atlantic fleet, he said thirteen were available. Const ruction of large sea¬ 
going submarines of the 800-ton type was strongly urged by Constructor Land. 

“England, Germany, Austria, and France all have this type of boat,” said 
the witness. “Italy, Japan, and Russia are also supplied. Italy has aban¬ 
doned the smaller boat, and is now building boats from 750 to 900 tons.” 

STILL IN EXPERIMENTAL STAGE 

He explained that the new sea-going submarine Schlep had not entirely 
passed the experimental stage, and that the Navy had not developed an ab¬ 
solutely successful type of boat. 

CALLS RELATIVE STRENGTH 100 TO 1 

That it is “absolutely impracticable” for the fleet to protect both the 
Atlantic and Pacific (’oasts was stated by the admiral under questioning by 
Representative Stephens of California. Because use of the Panama Canal is 
uncertain and foes might attack both coasts at once, he said, two fleets should 
be provided. He said the relative strength of the Pacific and Atlantic fleets 
now was about 1 to 100. 

Admiral Fiske explained to the committee that differences with Secretary 
Daniels over the measure of preparedness he believed necessary caused his 
resignation as aide for operations, and asserted there were no personal 
disputes. 

Assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt, before the Naval Committee, 
said that, judged by the experience of England, whose naval forces have in¬ 
creased three times since the war began, the United States Navy would need 
225,000 men in case of war with a first-class power. 


OPINIONS OF WELL-KNOWN MEN 

ELIIIU ROOT-HENRY L. STIMSOX 

Two former War Secretaries, Republicans, who indorse ex-Secretary Gar¬ 
rison’s, army program and oppose the militia as the basis of a national army. 


ARMY AND NAVY AUTHORITIES 

Admiral Fletcher, commanding the Atlantic fleet, stated in his annual report 
that it suffers from a shortage of officers and men and the lack of fast armored 
ships, fast light cruisers, and the limitations of our submarines. Rear Admiral 
Blue informed Congress that the Navy is ready now to meet any enemy in the 
Pacific Ocean and that the shortage of men in the Atlantic fleet lias been 
remedied. Major General Hugh L. Scott. Chief of Staff, thinks it would be 
perfectly feasible for an enemy to land a force on the Atlantic Coast, and ad¬ 
vocates an army of 2,000.000 and compulsory military service. Major General 
Wood believes that “with manhood suffrage goes manhood service” and wants 
an army of 210,000 and trained reserves of 2,000.000. He claims our coast 
would be in danger from a well-organized force of 150,000. 


53 


ADMIRAL GEORGE DEWEY 

President of the General Board of the Navy which recommends that “the 
Navy of the United States should ultimately he equal to the most powerful 
maintained by any other nation in the world” and that while the increase 
should be made gradually year by year, the goal desired should be attained not 
later than 1925. 


LIEUTENANT GENERAL NELSON A. MILES 

He advocates expansion of the National Guard rather than the creation of a 
continental army, and recommends a regular army of 150,000. The “overseas 
expeditions” to invade this country, he claims, “spring from the minds of men 
writing about preparedness who know less about preparedness than anything 
else.” 


Preparedness Legislation 

H. R. 13768, appropriating $8,611,582 for expenses of the Villa punitive ex¬ 
pedition passed the House of Representatives on March 28, with but one dis¬ 
senting vote—that of Representative London, and passed the Senate the same 
day without a record vote. 

The Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives is ex¬ 
pected to introduce a bill, early in April, to provide for increasing the Navy. 

It is possible that the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs will introduce an¬ 
other bill. No definite information on this point is available at present. 

On March 29th—the day this pamphlet went to press—the status of pre¬ 
paredness legislation was as follows: 

H. R. 9224, a bill increasing the number of midshipmen at the United States 
Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, passed the House and Senate without 
record votes and was approved by the President on February 15tli. 

H. J. Resolution 96, making the sum of $600,000 immediately available for 
the extension of building ways and equipments at the New York and Mare 
Island, California, navy yards, passed the House and Senate without record 
votes and was approved by the President on February 15tli. 

-^Senate 4840, a bill to make further and more effectual provision for the 
national defense, was introduced in the Senate on March 3d by Senator 
Chamberlain, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Military Affairs. A sum¬ 
mary of this bill will be given under another heading. 

By a joint resolution, nearly 20,000 additional regular troops for service in 
the Mexican campaign were placed at the disposal of the President. There 
was a record vote in the Senate but not a single vote was cast against the 
resolution. 

Senate 1417, a bill to erect a Government factory for the manufacture of 
armor, and appropriating a sum not to exceed $11,000,000 for this purpose, 
passed the Senate on March 21st. This bill was introduced by Senator Tillman, 
Chairman of the Senate on Naval Affairs. 

The roll call on the passage of this bill was as follows: 


(Democrats in 

Roman letters, 

Republicans in italics, P 

YEAS—58 

for Progressive.) 

Ashurst 

Hughes 


O’Gorman 

Smith, Ga. 

Bankhead 

Husting 


Overman 

Smith, Md. 

Beckham 

James 


Owen 

Smith, S. C. 

Borah 

Johnson, Me. 

Phelan 

Sterling 

Broussard 

Johnson, S. 

Dak. 

Pittman 

Stone 

Chamberlain 

Kenyon 


Poindexter, P 

Swanson 

Chilton 

Kern 


Pomerene 

Thompson 

Clapp 

Lane 


Ransdell 

Tillman 

Culberson 

Lee, Md. 


Reed 

Underwood 

Cummins 

Lewis 


Robinson 

Vardaman 

Gore 

Martin, Va. 


Saulsbury 

Walsh 

Gronna 

Martine, N. 

J. 

Shafroth 

Williams 

Hardwick 

Hitchock 

Hollis 

Myers 

Newlands 

Norris 


Sheppard 

Shields 

Simmons 

Works 




54 


Brandegee 

Catron 

Clark, Wyo. 

Colt 

Curtis 

Dillingham 


Brady 
Bryan 
Burleigh 
Clarke, Ark. 


NAYS-23 


du Pont 

Galling er 

Harding 

Jones 

Lippitt 

Lodge 


McLean 

Oliver 

Page 

Penrose 

Sherman 

Smith, Mich. 


NOT voting—14 


Fall 

Fletcher 

Goff 

La Follette 


Lea, Tenn. 
McCumber 
Nelson 
Smith, Ariz. 


Smoot 

Sutherland 

Toicnsend 

Wadsworth 

Weeks 


Thomas 

Warren 


PAIRS 

Senator Thomas was paired. If at liberty, to vote, he would have voted yea. 

Senator Lea was paired. If at liberty to vote, he would have voted yea. 

Senator Warren was paired with Senator La Follette. Senator La Follette would have 
voted yea and Senator Warren nay. 

Senator Fletcher was paired. He would have voted yea. 

So the bill was passed. 

Having passed the Senate, the bill was referred to the House Committee on 
Naval Affairs, which will probably take some action on it during the first 
week of April. 

Senate 4876, a bill to increase the number of cadets at the United States 
Military Academy at West Point, New York, passed the Senate March 23d. 
The roll call on the passage of the bill was as follows: 


(Democrats in Roman letters, Republicans in italics, P for Progressive.) 


yeas —59 


Ashurst 

Gore 

Newlands 

Smith, Ga. 

Beckham 

Harding 

O'Gorman 

Smith, Md. 

Brandegee 

Hardwick 

Overman 

Smith, S. C. 

Broussard 

Hitchcock 

Page 

Smoot 

Catron 

Hollis 

Poindexter, P 

Sterling 

Chamberlain 

Hughes 

Pomerene 

Sutherland 

Chilton 

Husting 

Ransdell 

Thompson 

Clapp 

James 

Reed 

Tillman 

Clark, Wyo. 

Kenyon 

Robinson 

Toicnsend 

Colt 

Lane 

Saulsbury 

Underwood 

Cummins 

Lea, Tenn. 

Shafroth 

Wadsworth 

Curtis 

Lee, Md. 

Sheppard 

Walsh 

Dillingham 

Lewis 

Sherman 

Warren 

du Pont 

Lodge 

Shields 

Williams 

Gallinger 

Myers 

Simmons 



nays- 

—2 



N orris 

Vardaman 



not voting —34 


Bankhead 

Goff 

McLean 

Smitt. Ariz. 

Borah 

Gronna 

Martin, Va. 

Smith, Mich. 

Brady 

Johnson, Me. 

Martine, N. J. 

Stone 

Bryan 

Johnson, S. Dak. 

Nelson 

Swanson 

Burleigh 

Jones 

Oliver 

Thomas 

Clarke, Ark. 

Kern 

Ow r en 

Weeks 

Culberson 

La Follette 

Penrose 

IF orks 

Fall 

Lippitt 

Phelan 


Fletcher 

McCumber 

Pittman 



pairs 

Senator .Tones was paired. If at liberty to vote, he would have voted yea. 

Senator Gronna was paired. He would have voted yea. 

So the bill passed. 

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Military Affairs. 

H. R. 12766, a bill to increase the efficiency of the Military Establishment of 
the United States, was introduced by Representative Hay, Chairman of the 
House Committee on Military Affairs. It passed the House of Representatives 
on March 23d. As the bill passed the House it provided for: 

A regular army of 140.000 men, an increase of 20.000 over the present 
authorized strength. 


55 


A tedei alizeil militia of 425,000 moil under the control of the Federal 
Government. 

A stem of reserves recruited from retiring members of both the regular 
urrny and the militia. 

A re>eM e officers corps of 50,000, recruited from graduates of military 
schools under Federal supervision. 

Federal pay for officers and enlisted men of the National Guard. 

Authority for the President and Secretary of War to make plans for the 
mobilization of the industrial resources of the country in time of war. 

The House Committee on Military Affairs estimated that the grand total of 
the cost of the Regular Army, based on estimates submitted for the fiscal 
year of 1917, together with the cost of proposed increase based on the pro¬ 
posed bill, included pay for the Organized Militia, would be $116,319,271.40 for 
le first jear, and $137,494,954.77 for the fifth year and thereafter including 
the Organized Militia. 

The roll call on the passage of the bill was as follows: 

<r> lor Democrat, R for Republican, P for Progressive, I h"- Independent, S for Socialist.) 

[Roll No. 35] 


YEAS— 402 


Adair, D 

Collier, D 

Flood, D 

Hopwood, R 

Adamson, D 

Connelly, D 

Flynn, D 

Houston, D 

Aiken, D 

Conry, D 

Focht, R 

Howard, D 

Alexander, D 

Cooper, Ohio, R 

Foss, R 

Howell, R 

Aden, D 

Cooper, W. Va., R 

Foster, D 

Huddleston, D 

Almon, D 

Cooper, Wis., R 

Frear, R 

Hughes, D 

Anderson, R 

Costello, R 

Freeman, R 

Hulbert, D 

Anthony, R 

Cox, D 

Fuller, R 

Hull, Iowa, R 

Ashbrook. D . 

Crago, R 

Gallagher, D 

Hull, Tenn., D 

Aswell, D 

Cramton, R 

Gallivan, D 

Humphrey, Wash. R 

Austin, R 

Crisp, D 

Gandy, D 

Humphreys, Miss., D 

Ayres, D 

Crosser, D 

Card, D 

Husted, R 

Bacharach, R 

Cullop, D 

Gardiner, R 

Hutchinson, R 

Bailey, D 

Curry, R 

Garner, D 

Igoe, D 

Barchfeld, R 

Dale, N. Y., D 

Garrett, D 

Jacoway, D 

Barkley, D 

Dale, Vt., R 

Gillett, R 

James, R 

Barnhart. D 

Dallinger, R 

Glass, D 

Johnson, S. Dak., R 

Beakes, D 

Danforth, R 

Glynn, R 

Johnson, Wash., R 

Beales, R 

Darrow, R 

Godwin, N. C., D 

Jones, D 

Bell, D 

Davenport, D 

Good, R 

Kahn, R 

Bennett. R 

Davis, Tex., D 

Goodwin, Ark., D 

Kearns, R 

Black, D 

Decker, D 

Gordon, D 

Keating, D 

Blackmon, D 

Dempsey, R 

Gould, R 

Keister, D 

Booher, D 

Denison, R 

Gray, Ala., D 

Kelley, R 

Borland, D 

Dent, D 

Gray, Ind., D 

Kennedy, R. I., R 

Browne, R 

Dewalt, D 

Gray, N. J., R 

Kent, I 

Browning, R 

Dickinson, D 

Green, Iowa, R 

Kettner, D 

Bruckner, D 

Dies, D 

Greene, Mass., R 

Key, Ohio, D 

Brumbaugh, D 

Dill, D • 

Greene. Vt., R 

Kiess, Pa., R 

Buchanan, Ill., D 

Dillon, R 

Guernsey, R 

Kincheloe, D 

Buchanan. Tex., D 

Dixon, D 

Hadley, R 

King, R 

Burgess, D 

Dooling, D 

Hamill. D 

Kinkaid, R 

Burke, D 

Doolittle, D 

Hamilton, Mich., R 

Kitchin, D 

Burnett, D 

Doremus, D 

Hamilton. N. Y., R 

Konop, D 

Butler, R 

Doughton, D 

Hamlin, D 

Kreider, R 

Byrns, Tenn., D 

Dowell, R 

Hardy, D 

Lafean, R 

Caldwell, D 

Driscoll, D 

Harrison, D 

La Follette, R 

Callaway, D 

Drukker, R 

Hart. D 

Langley, R 

Campbell, R 

Dunn, R 

Haskell, R 

Lazaro, D 

Candler, Miss., D 

Dupre, D 

Hastings, D 

Lee, D 

Cannon, R 

Dyer, R 

Haugen, R 

Lehlback, R 

Cantrill, D 

Eagan, D 

Hawley, R 

Lenroot, R 

Capstick, R 

Eagle, D 

Hay, D 

Lesher, D 

Caraway, D 

Edmonds. R 

Hayden, D 

Lever, D 

£arew, D 

Elston. P 

Hayes, R 

Lewis, D 

Carlin, D 

Emerson, R 

Heaton, R 

Lieb, D 

Carter, Mass., R 

Esch, R 

Heffin, D 

Liebel, D 

Carter, Okla., D 

Estopinal, D 

Helgesen, R 

Lindbergh, R 

Casey, D 

Evans, D 

Helvering. D 

Linthicum, D 

Chandler, N. Y., R 

Fairchild. R 

Hensley. D 

Lloyd. D 

Charles, R 

Farley, D 

Hernandez, R 

Lobeck. D 

Chiperfield, R 

Farr, R 

Hicks, R 

Loft, D 

Church, D 

Ferris. D 

Hill, R 

Longworth, R 

Clark, Fla., D 

Fess. R 

Hinds. R 

Loud, R 

Cline, D 

Fields, D 

Holland. D 

McAndrews, D 

Coady, D 

Finley, D 

Hollingsworth, R 

McArthur, R 

Coleman, R 

Fitzgerald, D 

Hood, D 

McClintic, D 


56 


McCracken, R 
McCulloch, R 


Oglesby, D 

Schall, P 

Swift, R 


Oliver, D 

Scott, Mich., R 

Taggart, D 

McDermott, D 


Olney, D 

Scott, Pa., R 

Tague, D 

McFadden, R 
McGillicuddy, 


O’Shaunessy, D 

Scully, D 

Talbott, D 

D 

Overmyer, D 

Sears, D 

Tavenner, D 

McKellar, D 


Padgett, D 

Sells, R 

Taylor, Ark., D 

McKenzie, R 
McKinley, R 


Page, N. C., D 

Shackleford, D 

Taylor, Colo., D 


Paige, Mass., R 

Shallenberger, D 

Temple, R 

McLaughlin, R 

Park, D 

Sherley, D 

Thomas, D 
Thompson, D 

McLemore, D 


Parker, N. J., R 

Sherwood, D 

Madden, R 


Parker, N. Y., R 

Shouse, D 

Tillman, D 

Magee, R 
Maher, D 


Patten, D 

Siegel, R 

Til son, R 


Peters, R 

Phelan, D 

Sims, D 

Timberlake, R 

Mann, R 


Sinnot, R 

Tinkham, R 

Mapes, R 


Platt, R 

Sisson, D 

Slayden, D 

Towner, R 

Martin, P 


Porter, R 

Treadway, R 
Tribble, D 

Matthews, R 


Pou, D 

Slemp, R 

Mays, D 


Powers, R 

Sloan, R 

Van Dyke, D 

Meeker, R 


Pratt, R 

Small, D 

Vare, R 

Miller, Del., R 


Price, D 

Smith, Idaho, R 

Venable, D 

Miller, Minn., 

R 

Quin, D 

Smith, Mich., R 

Vinson, D 

Volstead, R 

Miller, Pa., R 


Ragsdale, D 

Smith, Minn., R 

Mondell, R 


Rainey, D 

Smith, N. Y., D 

Walsh, R 

Montague, D 


Raker, D 

Smith, Tex., D 

Ward, R 

Moon, D 


Ramseyer, R 

Snell, R 

Wason, R 

Moony, R 


Rauch, D 

Snyder, R 

Watkins, D 

Moore, Pa., R 


Rayburn, D 

Sparkman, D 

Watson, Pa.. R 

Moores, Ind., 

R 

Reavis, R 

Stafford, R 

Watson, Va., D 

Morgan, La, D 


Reilly, D 

Steagall, D 

Webb, D 

Morgan. Okla., 

R 

Ricketts, R 

Stedman, D 

Whaley, D 

Morin, R 


Riordan, D 

Steele, Iowa, D 

Wheeler, R 

Moss, Ind., D 


Roberts, Mass., R 

Steele, Pa., D 

Williams, T. S., R 

Moss, W. Va., 

R 

Roberts, Nev., R 

Steenerson, R 

Williams, W. E., D 

Mott, R 


Rodenberg, R 

Stephens, Cal., P 

Williams, Ohio, R 

Mudd. R 


Rogers, R 

Stephens, Miss., D 

Wilson, Ill., R 

Murray, D 


Rouse, D 

Stephens, Nebr., D 

Wilson, La., D 

Neely, D 


Rowe, R 

Rubey, D 

Stephens, Tex., D 
Sterling, R 

Winslow, R 

Nelson, R 


Wise, D 

Nicholls, S. C., 

D 

Rucker, D 

Stone, D 

Wood, Ind.. R 

Nichols, Mich., 

R 

Russell, Mo., D 

Stout, D 

Woods, Iow r a. R 

Nolan. P 


Russell, Ohio, R 

Sulloway, R 

Young, N. Dak., R 

North, R 


Sabath, D 

Sumners, D 

Young, Tex., D 

Norton, R 
Oakey, R 

Abercrombie, 

D 

Sanford, R Sutherland, R 

Saunders, D Sweet, R 

NAYS—2 

Britten, R London, S 

'» 

ANSWERED “PRESENT”-1 

Randall, D 

NOT VOTING — 28 

Ellsworth, R Helm, D 

Oldfield, D 

Britt, R 


Fordney, R 

Henry, D 

Rowland, R 

Byrnes, S. C., 

, D 

Garland, R 

Hilliard, D 

Stiness, R 

Cary, R 


Graham, R 

Johnston, Ky., D 

Switzer, R 

Copley. P 


Gregg, D 

Kennedy, Iowa, R 

Walker, D 

Davis, Minn., 

It 

Griest, R 

Littlepage, D 

Wilson, Fla., D 

Edwards, D 


Griffin, D 

Morrison, D 

Wingo, D 


So the bill was passed. 

The Clerk announced the following additional pairs: 

On the vote: 

Mr. Helm with Mr. Graham. 

Mr. Wilson of Florida with Mr. Kennedy of Iowa. 

Mr. Hilliard with Mr. Stiness. 

Mr. Byrnes of South Carolina with Mr. Copley. 

Until further notice: 

Mr. Littlepage with Mr. Switzer. 

Mr. Oldfield with Mr. Rowland. 

Mr. Henry with Mr. Davis of Minnesota. 

Mr. Walker with Mr. Ellsworth. 

Mr. Humphrey of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I am paired with the gentle¬ 
man from Indiana. Mr. Morrison, and I voted “aye.” I understand he would 
vote the same way if he were present, so I want to let that vote stand. 


57 


After passing the House of Representatives on March 21st, H. R. 127t>(5 was 
referred to the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, which amended the hill 
by striking out all hut the preamble and substituting the features of Senate 
Bill No. 4840. In this form, the bill will be discussed by the Senate within 
the next few weeks. 

The salient features of the bill as now before the Senate are: 

The bill increases the Regular Army by the addition of the following units: 

34 1-3 regiments of Infantry. 

10 regiments of Cavalry. 

15 regiments of Field Artillery. 

5 regiments of Engineers. 

03 companies of Coast Artillery. 

2 battalions of Mounted Engineers. 

7 aero squadrons. 

And the necessary increases of other auxiliary troops and staff departments. 
These new organizations will increase the authorized Regular Army in time 
of peace about 74,789 enlisted men. The authorized strength of the Regular 
Army under ordinary circumstances will be about 174,789 men. or less than 
two men per thousand for our population, and can in emergency be raised to 
about 236.000 by the addition of men trained in its own ranks and then passed 
to the Regular Army Reserve. 

The present authorized strength as limited by law is 100,000 enlisted men 
of the line, including Philippine Scouts, but to this must he added 6,000 
Quartermaster Corps enlisted men. 4,012 enlisted men of the Hospital Corps, 
and 4,000 unassigned recruits, which, under existing laws, are not to be 
counted as part of the strength of the Army, making a total force authorized 
of 114.012 enlisted men. The present actual strength is 89,324 so-called ‘“line 
including the Philippine Scouts.” plus 4,900 enlisted men of the Quartermaster 
Corps. 4.436 enlisted men of the Hospital Corps, and 4,000 authorized un¬ 
assigned recruits, a total actual strength of 103,660. This number is limited 
by appropriations for the support of the Army and is fixed by the President. 

The proposed force will include 174,7-89 enlisted men “line of the Army and 
Philippine Scouts” plus 6,409 enlisted men of the Quartermaster Corps, plus 
7.290 enlisted men of the Hospital Corps, plus 6,098 unassigned recruits, an 
actual total of 194,586, or an actual increase in the authorized strength of 
74.789 enlisted men of the “line and Philippine Scouts,” 409 Quartermaster 
Corps men, 3,278 Hospital Corps men,' and 2,098 unassigned recruits, a total 
actual increase of 80,574 enlisted men. 

The total commissioned strength at present is 5,045. The proposed bill in¬ 
creases this number to 10.726. 

A new class of reservists is created, to consist of men who, by the nature of 
their civil occupation or profession, are peculiarly fitted for the special 
technical work of the Quartermaster. Engineer, or Signal Corps, or the 
Ordnance or Medical Departments of the Army. The number of this class of 
men that would be needed in time of war is far in excess of the numbers that 
will ever be maintained in the Regular Army. This class of men do not 
require drilling and training in field exercises as do infantrymen or cavalry¬ 
men. 

The members of the Regular Army reserve will be paid a small sum of 82 
a month to keep them in touch with the War Department, but the large bonus 
contemplated in existing law will be done away with and more assurance of 
service in time of need and more economy will result under the proposed law. 

Section 56 proposes to create a volunteer force in which citizens can be 
enrolled who for any reason can not join the National Guard or the Regular 
Army. 

The bill increases the scope of usefulness of the National Guard and binds 
the 48 small disconnected detachments, that now exist, into one great national 
force as far as constitutional limitations will permit. Pay is provided for tlm 
members of the National Guard who give a great deal .of time to that work 
and largely increased appropriations for the National Guard are anticipated 
in the provisions of the bill. Under the new plans the future of the National 
Guard looks brighter and better than ever before in our history. Existing 
defects regarding the appointment of officers and the system of training have, 


58 


to a large degree, been remedied. No constitutional right of the States is 
invaded but certain rules are laid down, upon compliance with which, is 
based participation in the Federal appropriations for the support of the 
National Guard; and in addition thereto, certain heretofore unused powers of 
the Federal Government under the Constitution have been assumed. 

An increased number of Regular Army officers for instructing the National 
Guard is provided for. A uniform law governing enlistments in the guard and 
uniform methods of administering discipline through National Guard court- 
martial are laid down in the bill. 

The National Guard authorized under the proposed act will be about 280,000 
officers and enlisted men in the active guard. 

A National Guard Reserve is created to which men who have served can be 
furloughed so that their services will not be lost when they leave the active 
organizations of the guard. 

TOTAL COST OF ALL FORCES CONTEMPLATED UNDER SENATE BILL 

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Annually 

year year year year year thereafter 

Regular Army. $126,602,013 $138,691,950 $151,490,220 $167,508,594 $182,067,552 $177,768,055 

National Guard 46,349,800 50,922,000 40,637,400 45,820,400 40,873,200 40,873,200 

Volunteers ... 24,944,938 31,536,177 39,311,975 47,413,567 27,609,067 27,609,067 

Total .... 197,896,751 221,150,127 231,439,595 260,742,561 250,549,819 246,250,322 

Copies of the preparedness bills can probably be obtained from Senators, 
Representatives, or from the Senate or House Document Rooms, Capitol, 
Washington, D. C. 


THE COST OF PREPAREDNESS 

NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE CONSIDERED 

The Sixty-fourth Congress will consider the gravest revenue problem since 
Civil War days. 

Hundreds of millions will be asked for the Navy and the Army, additional 
millions for the Panama Canal and millions to meet deficiencies of revenue 
from existing sources. 

Among new sources mentioned are: 

Taxes on checks; tax on inheritances; tax on munitions of war; tax on 
imported coal-tar products; tax on gasoline and other petroleum products; 
tax on horsepower of internal combustion engines; rate of income tax in¬ 
creased and exemptions lowered; extension of present war tax to new subjects 
of taxation ; tariff schedules changed for increasing revenue or limiting imports* 


From the President's Message to Congress, December 7, 1915 

The emergency revenue act, if continued beyond the present time limitation, 
would produce during the half year then remaining about forty-one millions. 
The duty of one cent per pound on sugar, if continued, would produce dur¬ 
ing the two months of the fiscal year remaining after the first of May about 
fifteen millions. 


::< * * * * * 

SOURCES OF EXTRA REVENUE 

How shall we obtain the new revenues? We are frequently reminded that 
there are many millions of bonds which the Treasury is authorized under 
existing law to sell to reimburse the sums paid out of current revenues for 
the construction of the Panama Canal; and it is true that bonds to the amount 
of approximately $222,000,000 are now available for that purpose. Prior to 
19] 3, $134,031,980 of these bonds had actually been sold to recoup the ex¬ 
penditures at the isthmus, and now constitute a considerable item of the 
public debt. Rut I for one do not believe that the people of this country 
approve of postponing the payment of their bills. Borrowing money is short¬ 
sighted finance. It can be justified only when permanent things are to be 
accomplished which many generations will certainly benefit by and which 









It seems hardly fair that a single generation should pay for. The objects 
"ive are now proposing to spend money for cannot be so classified, except in 
the sense that everything wisely done may he said to be done in the interest 
of posterity as well as in our own. It seems to me a clear dictate of prudent 
statesmanship and frank finance that in what we are now, I hope, about to 
undertake, we should pay as we go. The people of the country are entitled 
to know just what burdens of taxation they are to carry, and to know from 
the outset now. The new bills should be paid by internal taxation. 

EXTEND INCOME TAX 

To what sources, then, shall we turn? This is so peculiarly a question 
which the gentlemen of the House of Representatives are expected under the 
Constitution to propose an answer to that you will hardly expect me to do 
more than discuss it in very general terms. We should be following an almost 
universal example of modern governments if we were to draw the greater 
part or even the whole of the revenues we need from the income taxes. By 
somewhat lowering the present limits of exemption and the figure at which 
the surtax shall begin to be imposed, and by increasing, step by step, through¬ 
out the present graduation, the surtax itself, the income taxes as at present 
apportioned would yield sums sufficient to balance the books of the Treasury 
at the end of the fiscal year 1917 without anywhere making the burden un¬ 
reasonably or oppressively heavy. The precise reckonings are fully and accu¬ 
rately set out in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, which will be 
immediately laid before you. 

And there are many additional sources of revenue which can justly be re¬ 
sorted to without hampering the industries of the country or putting any 
too great charge upon individual expenditure. A tax of 1 cent per gallon 
on gasoline and naphtha would yield, at the present estimated production, 
$10,000,000; a tax of 50 cents per horsepower on automobiles and internal 
explosion engines, $15,000,000; a stamp tax on bank checks, probably $18.- 
000.000; a tax of 25 cents per ton on pig iron $10,000,000; a tax of 25 cents 
per ton on fabricated iron and steel, probably $10,000,000. In a country of 
great industries like this it ought to be easy to distribute the burdens of 
taxation without making them anywhere bear too heavily or too exclusively 
upon any one set of persons or undertakings. What is clear is that the indus¬ 
try of this generation should pay the bills of this generation. 


The Constitution provides that bills for raising revenue must originate in 
the House of Representatives. Regardless of the number of bills introduced 
by the various Representatives, the bill for raising revenue for preparedness 
and other expenses of the Government will be a bill drafted and reported by 
the House Committee on Ways and Means. When the Committee has hear¬ 
ings printed, copies may be obtained on application to the Chairman. When 
the bill reaches the Senate, it will be referred to the Senate Committee on 
Finance, which may amend it by cutting out all but the enacting clause and 
practically rewriting the measure. 


COMMITTEE OX WAYS AND MEANS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


64TH 

Democrats 

Claude Kitchin, N. C., Chairman. 
Henry T. Rainey, Ill. 

Lincoln Dixon. Ind. 

Cordell Hull, Tenn. 

John N. Garner, Texas. 

James W. Collier. Miss. 

Clement C. Dickinson. Mo. 

Wm. A. Oldfield. Ark. 

Daniel J. McGillicuddy, Me. 

Alfred G. Allen, Ohio. 

Charles R. Crisp, Ga. 

John J. Casey, Pa. 

Guy T. Helvering. Kansas. 


CONGRESS 

Republicans 

Joseph W. Fordney, Mich. 
Augustus P. Gardner, Mass. 

•T. Hampton Moore, Pa. 

Wm. R. Green, Iowa. 

Charles H. Sloan, Nebraska. 
Ebenezer J. Hill, Conn. 

Nicholas Longworth. Ohio. 
George W. Fairchild. New York. 




SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 


Democrats 

F. M. Simmons, N. C., Chairman. 
Wm. J. Stone, Mo. 

John Sharp Williams, Miss. 
Charles F, Johnson, Me, 
Benjamin F. Shively, Ind. 

Hoke Smith, Ga. 

Charles S. Thomas, Colorado. 
o”ie M. James, Ky. 

Wm. Hughes, N. J. 

Thomas P. Gore, Okla. 


Republicans 
Boies Penrose, Pa. 

Henry Cabot Lodge, Mass. 

Porter J. McCumber, N. Dakota. 

Keed Smoot, Utah. 

Jacob H. Gallinger. New Hampshire. 
Clarence I). Clark, Wyo. 

Robert M. La Follette, Wis. 


H. R. 11171, a bill to repeal the free-sugar clause of the Tariff Act of 1913, 
passed the House of Representatives on March 16, and has been referred to 
the Senate Committee on Finance. It has been estimated that the repeal 
of the free-sugar provision will save $33,000,000 a year to the Federal Treas¬ 
ury. The roll call on the passage of the bill was ns follows: 


(D for Democrat, R for Republican, P for Progressive, I for Independent, 

yeas— 344 

Cox, D 


Adamson, D 
Aiken, D 
Alexander, D 
Almon, D 
Anderson, R 
Ashbrook, D 
Aswell, D 
Austin, R 
Ayres D 
Bacharach, R 
Barchfeld, R 
Barnhart, D 
Beakes, D 
Beales, R 
Bell, D 
Bennet R 
Black. D 
Blackmon, D 
Booher. D 
Borland, D 
Britt, R 
Britten, R 
Browne R 
Browning, R 
Brumbaugh, D 
Buchanan, Tex., 
Burgess, D 
Burke, D 
Burnett, D 
Butler, R 
Byrnes, S. C., D 
Byrns, Tenn., D 
Caldwell, D 
Candler, Miss., D 
Cannon, R 
Cantrill, D 
Capstick, R 
Caraway, D 
Ciarew, D 
Carlin, B 
Carter, Okla., D 
Cary, R 
Casey, D 
Charles, R 
Church, D 
Clark. Fla., D 
Cline, D 
Coady, D 
Collier. D 
Connelly, D 
Conry, D 
Cooper, Ohio, R 
Cooper, W. Va., 
Cooper, Wis., R 
Costello, R 


Crisp, D 
Curry, R 
Dale, Vt., R 
Dallinger, R 
Danforth, R 
Darrow, R 
Davenport, D 
Davis, Minn., R 
Davis, Tex., D 
Decker, D 
Denison, R 
Dent, D 
Dickinson, D 
Dies, D 
Dill, D 
Dillon, R 
Dixon, D 
Doolittle, D 
Doremus, D 
Dowell, R 
Drukker, R 
Dunn. R 
Dupre, D 
Dyer, R 
D. Eagan, D 
Eagle, D 
Ellsworth, R 
Elston, P 
Emerson, R 
Esch, R 
Estopinal, D 
Evans, D 
Farley, D 
Farr, R 
Ferris, D 
Fields, D 
Finley, D 
Fitzgerald, D 
Flood, D 
Focht, R 
Fordney, R 
Foster, D 
Frear, R 
Freeman, R 
Fuller, R 
Gallagher, D 
Gandy, D 
Gard, D 
Garland, R 
Garner, D 
Garrett, D 
R Gillett, R 
Glass, D 
Glynn, R 


Good, R 

Goodwin, Ark., D 
Goodwin, N. C., D 
Gould. R 
Gray, Ind., D 
Gray, N. J., R 
Green, Iowa, R 
Greene, Mass., R 
Greene, Vt., R 
Guernsey, R 
Hadley, R. 

Hamilton, Mich., R 
Hamlin, D 
Hardy, D 
Hart, D 
Hasken, R 
Hastings, D 
Haugen, R 
Hawley, R 
Hay, D 
Hayden, D 
Heaton, R 
Helgesen, R 
Helm, D 
Helvering. D 
Hensley, D 
Hernandez, R 
Hicks. R 
Hill, R 
Hinds, R 
Holland. D 
Hollingsworth. R 
Hood, D 
Hopwood, R 
Houston, D 
Howell. R 
Huddleston, D 
Hughes, D 
Hull, Iowa, R 
Hull, Tenn., D 
Humphrey. Wash. R 
Humphreys, Miss., D 
Husted, R 
Hutchinson, R 
Igoe, D 
Jacoway, D 
James, R 

Johnston, S. Dak., R 
Jones, D 
Kahn, R 
Kearns, R 
Kennedy, Iowa, R 
Kennedy, R. I., R 
Kent. I 
Kettner, D 


S for Socialist.) 


Key, Ohio, D 
Kincbeloe, D 
King, R 
Kinkaid, R 
Kitchin, D 
Konop, D 
Lafean, R 
La Follette. R 
Langley, R 
Lazaro, D 
Lee, D 
Lehlbach. R 
Lenroot, R 
Lesher. D 
Lever, D 
Lewis, D 
Lieb, D 
Liebel, D 
Lindbergh, R 
Linthicum, D 
Littlepage, D 
Lloyd. D 
Lobeck. D 
Longworth. R 
Loud, R 
McArthur, R 
McClintic, D 
McCracken, R 
McCulloch. R 
McDermott. D 
McFadden, R 
McGillicuddy. D 
McKenzie, R 
McKinley, R 
McLaughlin, R 
McLemore, D 
Magee, R 
Mapes, R 
Martin, P 
Matthews, R 
Mays. D 
Meeker, R 
Miller, Del., R 
Miller, Minn., R 
Miller, Pa., R 
Montague, D 
Moon, D 
Morgan, La., D 
Morgan, Okla., R 
Morin, R 
Morrison, D 
Moss, Ind.. D 
Moss, W. Va., R 
Mott. R 
Mudd. R 


61 


Murray, D 

Rayburn, D 

Slemp, R 

Tillman, D 

Neely, D 

Reavis, R 

Sloan, R 

Tilson, R 

Nelson, R 

Reilly, D 

Small, D 

Timberlake, R 

Nicholis, S. C., D 

Ricketts, R 

Smith, Idaho, R 

Tinkham, R 

Nichols, Mich., R 

Riordan, D 
Roberts, Mass., R 

Smith, Mich., R 

Towner, R 

Nolan, P 

Smith, Minn., R 

Treadway, R 

Norton, R 

Roberts, Nev., R 

Smith, N. Y., D 

Tribble, D 

Oakey, R 

Rodenberg, R 

Smith, Tex., D 

Vare, R 

Oliver, D 

Rogers, R 

Snell, R 

Venable, D 

Olney, D 

Rouse, D 

Snyder, R 

Vinson, D 

Overmyer, D 

Rowe, R 

Stafford. R 

Volstead, R 

Padgett, D 

Rubey, D 

Stedman, D 

Walker, D 

Page, N. C., D 
Paige, Mass., R 

Rucker, D 

Steele, Pa., D 

Walsh, R 

Russell, Mo., D 
Russell, Ohio, R 

Steenerson, R 

Ward, R 

Park, D 

Stephens, Cal., P 

Wason, R 

Parker, N. .T., R 

Sanford, R 

Stephens, Miss., D 

Watkins, D 

Parker, N. Y., R 

Saunders, D 

Stephens, Tex., D 

Watson, Pa., R 

Peters, R 

Schall, P 

Sterling, R 

Watson, Va., D 

Phelan, D 

Scott, Mich., R 

Stiness, R 

Webb, D 

Platt, R 

Scott, Pa., R 

Stone, D 

Whaley, D 

Pou, D 

Sears, D 

Stout, D 

Wheeler, R 

Powers, R 

Pratt, R 

Sells. R 

Sulloway, R 

Williams, W. E„ D 

Shackleford, D 

Sumners, D 

Williams, Ohio, It 

Price, D 

Shallenberger, D 

Sweet, R 

Wilson, Fla., D 

Quin, D 

Sherwood, D 

Swift, R 

Wilson, Ill., R 

Ragsdale. D 

Shouse, D 

Taggart, D 

Wilson, La., D 

Rainey, D 

Siegel, R 

Talbott. D 

Wise, D 

Wood. Ind., R 

Raker, D 

Sims, D 

Taylor, Ark., D 
Taylor, Colo., D 

Ramseyer, R 

Sinnott. R 

Woods, Iowa, R 

Randall, D 

Sisson, D 

Temple, R 

Young, N. Dak., R 

Rauch, D 

Slayden, D Thomas, D 

NAYS— 14 

Young, Tex., D 

Bailey, D 

Gordon, D 

London, S 

Thompson, D 

Buchanan, 111., D 

Hilliard, D 

McAndrews, D 

Van Dyke, D 

Callaway, D 

Howard, D 

Sabath, D 

Crosser, P 

Johnson, Ky., D 

Tavenner, D 



ANSWERED ‘ 

‘present” —4 

- 

Gardner, R 

.Johnson, Wash, R Mann, R 

NOT VOTING —71 

Mondell, R 

Abercrombie, D 

Pooling, D 

Hayes, R 

Oldfield, D 

Adair, D 

Doughton, D 

Heflin, D 

O’Shaunessy, D 

Allen, D 

Driscoll. D 

Henry, D 

Patten, D 

Anthony, R 

Edmonds, R 

Hulbert, D 

Porter, R 

Rowland, R 

Barkley, D 

Edwards, D 

Keating, D 

Bruckner, D 

Fairchild, R 

Keister, R 

Scully, D 

Campbell, R 

Fess, R 

Kelley. R 

Sherley, D 

Carter, Mass., R 

Flynn, D 

Kiess, Pa.. R 

Sparkman, D 

Chandler, N. Y., R 

Foss, R 

Kreider, R 

Steagall, D 

Chiperfield. R 

Gailivan, D 

Loft, R 

Steele, Iowa, D 
Stephens, Nebr., D 

Coleman, R 

Graham, R 

McKellar, D 

Copley, P 

Gray, Ala., D 

Madden, R 

Sutherland, R 

Crago, R 

Gregg. D 

Maher, D 

Switzer. R 

Cranton, R 

Griest, R 

Mooney, R 

Tague, D 

Cullop, D 

Griffin, D 

Moore, Pa., R 

Williams, T. S., R 

Dale, N. Y., D 

Hamill. D 

Moores, Ind., R 

Wingo. D 

Dempsey, R 

Hamilton, N. Y., 

R North, D 

Winslow, R 

Dewalt, D 

Harrison, D 

Oglesby, D 



So the bill was passed. 

The Clerk announced the following pairs: 

For this vote: 

Mr. Copley (for sugar tariff) with Mr. Bailey (against). 
Mr. Barkley with Mr. Langley (both for sugar bill). 

Mr. Mann (for sugar bill) with Mr. Keating (against). 
Until further notice: 

Mr. Allen with Mr. Campbell. 

Mr. Cullop with Mr. Carter of Massachusetts. 

Mr. Driscoll with Mr. Candler of Mississippi. 

Mr. Gray of Alabama with Mr. Chiperfield. 

Mr. Griffin with Mi’. Dempsey. 

Mr. Hamill with Mr. Edmonds. 

Mr. Harrison with Mr. Fairchild. 

Mr. McKellar with Mr. Graham. 


62 


Mr. Oglesby with Mr. Keister. 

Mr. Oldfield with Mr. Mooney. 

Mr. Scully with Mr. Moores of Indiana. 

Mr. Steagall with Mr. Switzer. 

Mr. Steele of Iowa with Mr. Winslow. 

Mr. Henry with Mr. Hayes. 

Mr. Heflin with Mr. Cramton. 

Mr. Bruckner with Mr. Rowland. 

Mr. Flynn with Mr. Sutherland. 

Mr. Adair with Mr. Thomas S. Williams. 

Mr. Dooling with Mr. Moore of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Gallivan with Mr. North. 

Mr. Tague with Mr. Griest. 

Mr. Dewalt with Mr. Crago. 

Mr. Sparkman with Mr. Foss. 

Mr. Wingo with Mr. Porter. 

Mr. Gregg with Mr. Kelley. 

Mr. Abercrombie with Mr. Ivreider. 

Mr. Stephens of Nebraska with Mr. Anthony. 

Mr. Sherley with Mr. Mondell. 

Mr. Edwards with Johnson of Washington (everything except immigration). 

Mr. Dale of New York with Mr. Kiess of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Maher with Mr. Hamilton of New York. 

Mr. Mondell: Mr. Speaker, I voted “aye.” I have a pair with the gentle¬ 
man from Kentucky, Mr. Sherley. and I wish to change my vote and answer 
“present.” 

The name of Mr. Mondell was called, and he answered “Present.” 

Mr. Johnson of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I voted “aye.” I am paired 
with Mr. Edwards of Georgia, and I desire to withdraw my vote and answer 
“present.” 

The name of Mr. Johnson of Washington was called, and he answered 
“Present.” 

Mr. Langley: Mr. Speaker, I have a general pair, as announced by the 
Clerk, with the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barkley. I voted “aye.” He 
told me before leaving the city to-day that if he were present he would also 
vote “aye” on this bill. I therefore feel warranted in letting my vote stand 
as “aye.” 

From Article by Burton J. Ilcndriclc in World's Work for March, 1916 

Congressmen, especially in the last twenty years, have used both the Army 
and the Navy, not as agencies of military defense, but as private “grafts.” 
The present method of distributing the Army is such a familiar scandal that 
it is not necessary to rehearse it again in detail. Briefly our Army is scat¬ 
tered in forty-nine posts, located not where they will defend the Nation but 
merely where they will best promote the prosperity of local communities and 
aid the political ambitions of Congressmen. It ought not to be necessary to 
argue the question further; a simple statement of the facts shows not only 
the absurdity but the dishonestly and wickedness of the present system. Yet, 
in the last ten years, three Secretaries of War, Mr. Root, Mr. Taft, and Mr. 
Stimson, have unsuccessfully attempted to change it. The Army pays out 
$48,000,000 in soldiers’ and officers’ pay every year on the basis of forty-nine 
posts. That means nearly $1,000,000 to each post. That is the patronage our 
lawmakers are after; that is the “pork” in this particular barrel. This large 
sum is nearly all spent at the army posts and makes prosperous thousands of 
tradesmen. The Government spends large sums in improvements and repairs 
—and local firms profit from this also. All these forces raise their voices 
whenever a conscientious Secretary of War asks for a disposition of our 
soldiers on sound military principles. 

* * * * * s)c s)c s^c 

Most people do not understand the storm of abuse heaped upon Mr. Gar¬ 
rison’s plan for a “continental army.” That proposal may have defects; 
nearly all the Congressional critics who assail it so bitterly, however, do not 


63 


do so on military grounds. Its worst shortcoming, in their eyes, is that it 
would destroy a political scheme which has been gaining momentum in recent 
years—that of Federal pay for the National Guard. This plan merely means 
the distribution of millions from the Federal Treasury for the support of 
forty-eight little independent armies located in the States. As the Federal 
Government has no control over these forces in time of peace and very little 
control in time of war, why should it contribute enormous amounts every year 
to their support? Yet the advocates of the National Guard, as opposed to a 
real Federal citizen force, are extremely active at present. They have recently 
organized a lobby at Washington and have established an “organ,” The 
National Guardsman, to push their militia pay bill. The recent convention of 
the National Guard Association at San Francisco, to quote from this organ, 
“unanimously voted to levy an assessment of $25 for each 500 men of the 
militia in each state for the purpose of maintaining a lobby during the next 
session of Congress to look out for the interest of the National Guard. This 
will amount to about $6,500.” Thus, as one tangible result of the prepared¬ 
ness campaign, we have a lobbied movement for a new pork barrel. 

******** 

In most cases these antimilitarists are devoted promoters of the military 
pork barrel. Congressman Sherwood, for example, recently made a flamboyant 
speech in which he denounced all plans for preparedness and suggested reduc¬ 
ing the legal quota of the standing army from 100,000 to 50,000 men. It is not 
surprising to learn, after reading this speech, that Congressman Sherwood is 
the author of the most extravagant pension bill Congress has ever passed. 

MR. MONDELL VS. MILITARY EXPERTS 

Congressman Mondell, of Wyoming, recently made a speech in Congress 
ridiculing the idea of preparedness. Does this mean that Congressman 
Mondell does not believe in spending money for military purposes? Not at all. 
He is one of the most fervent militarists in Congress, only his militarism takes 
the form of wasting millions of American money for the support of local 
tradesmen in two army posts in his State of Wyoming, a state that has a 
population of 145,000 and pays a total income tax of $66,395. Military ex¬ 
perts have testified again and again that these Wyoming army posts weaken 
rather than strengthen our military efficiency. Yet, at the close of Mr. 
Mondell’s recent diatribe in Congress against President Wilson’s conscientious 
attempt to give us better protection, the following colloquy took place: 

Mr. Borland. Am I right in believing that the gentleman will continue to 
support Fort D. A. Itussell? (Laughter) 

Mr. Mondell. The gentleman is eminently right, because Fort D. A. Rus¬ 
sell is a splendid post, and, contrary to the views of gold-laced fellows who, 
every time they go to one of Wilhelm’s reviews of a hundred thousand men in 
a bunch, want that kind of thing at home, and in spite of the fact that they 
want to put all of the troops near the big cities, I still believe the place to 
keep them is in the posts throughout the country and Fort D. A. Russell is 
one of the best. (Laughter) 

Congressman would like to have a munitions plant in his “deestrict”; Con¬ 
gressman Sherwood, the man who wants to reduce our Army to 50,000 men, and 
to scrap our battleships in order to pay the money so saved in pensions “to 
needy and meritorious soldiers” of the Civil War, has introduced a bill to 
establish a $5,000,000 munitions plant at his own town of Toledo! The news¬ 
papers every day reveal some new Congressman or Senator who wants a new 
West Point or Annapolis located where it will best promote his own political 
interests. 


64 


(From Washington Post) 


‘DEFENSE PORK” LATEST 


HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ARE ASKED IN PREPAREDNESS MEASURES—PACIFISTS NOT 

BACKWARD-REPRESENTATIVES IN SCRAMBLE FOR ARMOR PLANTS, AVIATION 

SCHOOLS, DRY DOCKS AND NAVY YARDS-DALE SEEKS $25,000,000 AS 

NEW YORK’S SHARE—WEST VIES WITH EAST 

(International News Service) 

“Preparedness pork” is the latest porcine product to put in an appearance in 
Congress, and hills providing hogsheads of it are now before various com¬ 
mittees. 

These bills provide for armor plate plants, arsenals, naval stations, military 
training schools, naval training schools, aviation stations, aviation schools, 
extensions of navy yards and arsenals, munitions plants and gun-forging 
plants. Many of them provide for indefinite appropriations, but the total 
demanded by the many measures would run between $250,000,000 and 
$500,000,000. ' 

PACIFISTS ASK FOR SHARE 

The pacifists of the House have not been backward in this regard. Repre¬ 
sentative Sherwood, of Ohio, after making an impassioned plea for peace and 
lambasting the preparedness Democrats—to such an extent that he was con¬ 
gratulated by William Jennings Bryan, asked for $5,000,000. He wanted the 
money spent to build a munitions plant at Toledo, Ohio, the center of his 
district. Representative Cox, of Indiana, after injecting into the Congressional 
Record some thousands of words about the beauties of peace, followed them 
with a bill to extend indefinitely the money to be spent on an arsenal in his 

DALE WANTS $25,000,000 

Of the other members, Representative Dale, of New York, who looks out for 
the New York Navy Yard, has bills before the Naval Committee which carry 
$25,000,000. He wants ah armor plate plant at the navy yard, a dry dock and 
equipment for building dreadnaughts and a big experimental laboratory for 
the use of the Advisory Board of the Navy. 

Representative Yare, of Pennsylvania, wants an iron foundry, a dry dock 
and a research laboratory at the League Island Yard. 

Representative Humphrey, of Washington, who has belabored Democratic 
extravagance almost daily for three years, wants a dry dock and building 
ways, and an aviation school to cost $2,000,000, on Puget Sound. 

SAN FRANCISCO’S CLAIMS VOICED 

Representative Kahn wants a coaling station on San Francisco Bay. Rep¬ 
resentative Elston wants an armor plate plant there. So does Representative 
Curry. Representative Kent suggests new naval and military academies and 
an aviation school on the California coast. 

Representative Holland, of Virginia, wants the Norfolk Navy Yard made the 
big building yard of the country, and therefore has introduced a bill for build¬ 
ing ways, dry dock and equipment. Representative Tague, of Massachusetts, 
wants the Boston yard similarly equipped. 

Representative Tavenner, of Illinois, whose district includes the Rock Island 
arsenal, and who is conducting a vigorous campaign against militarism, has 
introduced bills appropriating millions to build armor plate and gun forging 
plants there. 

SCRAMBLE FOR ARMOR PLANTS 

The standard appropriation demanded for Government armor plate plants is 
the modest sum of $5,000,000, and there are a score or more of bills for these 
plants. Representative Summers wants one at Dallas, Texas, his home town. 
Representative Bruckner wants one in the “Borough of the Bronx, New York 
City.” Representative Barkley, of Kentucky, wants one in his State. Repre¬ 
sentative Carlin, of Virginia, thinks that one should be located near the 
former lodgeroom of George Washington’s Masonic Chapter in Alexandria. 
Evansville, Ind., is the choice of Representative Lieb, and Moundsville is the 
ideal location selected by Representative Neely, of West Virginia. Repre- 



65 


sentative Konoi) wants one at Grenn Bay, Wis., and Representative Cary would 
locate it at Milwaukee. Representative Wheeler wants one in his home town, 
Springfield, Mass. 

Representatives Taylor, of Colorado, and Cullop, of Indiana, are not particu¬ 
lar as to the location of their $5,000,000 armor plate plants. They simply 
specify that they shall he in their respective congressional districts. 

ALSO SEEK MILLIONS 

Representative O’Shaunessy, of Rhode Island, wants a $2,000,000 projectile 
plant on the shores of Narragansett Bay, and Representative Sullowa.v, of New 
Hampshire, wants a dry dock to cost the same sum at the Portsmouth Navy 
Yard. 

Representative Capstick, of New Jersey, knows no State lines. He has intro¬ 
duced a bill appropriating $50,000,000 to organize a force of mobile coast 
artillery, 16-inch guns mounted on railroad cars to cover the whole Atlantic 
Coast. 

REFERENCES FOR DEBATERS 

(Please do not write to Collier’s Washington Bureau for any of the docu¬ 
ments listed herein. Write direct to the officials or offices named below. We 
cannot undertake to secure any of these documents for anyone.) 

Report of the Secretary of the Navy for the fiscal year 1015. Secretary 
of the Navy, Washington, D. C. 

Information Concerning Some of the Principal Navies of the World. Ships’ 
Data IT. S. Naval Vessels. Otlice of Naval Intelligence, Navy Department. 
Washington. T>. C. 

Navy Year Book, 1915, price 55 cents. Supt. of Documents, Government 
Printing Office. Washington. D. C. (Remittance should be made by money 
order, as he will NOT accept stamps, checks, or defaced coins.) 

List of Government publications on the Navy, Price List 63. The list is 
sent free by the Supt. of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, 
D. C. It is nothing more than a catalogue of the documents on this subject 
which he has for sale. 

Report of the Secretary of War for the fiscal year of 1015, A Proper Mili¬ 
tary Policy for the United States—War College Report. Secretary of War, 
War Department, Washington, D. C. 

Report of the Chief of Staff. Chief of Staff. War Department, Washing¬ 
ton, D. C. 

Report of the Adjutant General, Adjutant General, War Department, Wash¬ 
ington, D. C. 

List of Government publications on the Army and Organized Militia— 
Price list 10. Supt. of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, 
D. C. This is a list of the publications on these subjects which he has for 
sale. The list itself is free. 

Outline for Debate Briefs for Affirmative and Negative, Literary Digest 
(New Y T ork City) for February 26, 1016. Price 10 cents. 

Nation-wide Press Poll on Size of the Army and Navy, Literary Digest, 
March 11, 1916. Price, 10 cents. 

Hearings before congressional committees. Write to the respective chair¬ 
men of the committees. 


The debates in the Senate and House of Representatives on the Army and 
Navy appropriation bills and the bill for raising additional revenue will be 
printed in the official journal of Congress, the Congressional Record, issued 
daily while Congress is in session. Each Senator is allowed 88 copies of the 
Congressional Record, and each Representative 60 copies for free distribution 
to such persons as he may select. This allowance is generally exhausted by 
each Congressman in supplying the public libraries and the newspapers of his 
district. The only other way to get the Record is to subscribe for it at fixed 
rates: $1.50 per month; $4 for a short session and $8 for a long session. The 
present session will be a long one. Payment must be made in advance by 
money order payable to Cornelius Ford, Public Printer, Government Printing 
Office, Washington, D. C. 




